Sentences with phrase «articles on constitutional law»

He has published numerous books and articles on Constitutional Law, International Law, Criminal Law, History and Theory of Law, Judicial Reform and Legal Education.

In addition, Ryan has authored articles on constitutional law and theory and has argued before the United States Supreme Court.

Not exact matches

The essay by the distinguished jurist and constitutional scholar Robert H. Bork on «lawless law» was an important part of that symposium, and he returns to that subject in a comprehensive and devastating article in the New Criterion, titled «Adversary Jurisprudence.»

Once the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on a matter of U.S. Constitutional law, the only ways to change it are either for the Supreme Court to overturn their decision in a later ruling on a different case or for the U.S. Constitution to be amended, according to the process set out in Article V.

He has published numerous articles on contemporary democratic theory, Florentine political and constitutional thought, and twentieth - century German legal, political and social theory in scholarly journals, including the Modern Law Review, the American Political Science Review and Political Theory.

The second approach would have entailed the modification of an important part of the Court's own case law on the relationship between EU law and the Spanish Constitution, which currently holds that Article 93 of the Constitution does not make EU law part of the constitutional canon (see judgments STC 28/1991 or 41/2002).

In addition, although using Article 93 to integrate EU harmonised standards would have avoided any chance of future conflict between EU law and the Constitution, it would also have implied that the meaning of constitutional provisions on fundamental rights would differ depending on whether a case fell within the scope of EU law.

«ARL will be arguing that the Court should not recognize a justiciable duty to consult at any stage of the law - making stage as it would be contrary to the constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers and would severely impede the law - making process which is integral to the rule of law in Canada,» according to an article on ARL's website.

I believe that thanks to the national constitutional doctrines on the «conditional» primacy of EU law (on the «conditional supremacy» of EU law in the UK, see the post by Garner on this blog) as well as to the corresponding EU provisions — the constitutional identity clause in Article 4 (2) TEU and the authorisation to apply higher national standards of fundamental rights in Article 53 CFR — national constitutional or apex courts can provide necessary checks and balances on the ECJ enormous judicial power.

Accordingly the book opens with a part on EU Constitutional Law, which ends however with a short chapter on judicial review of the constitutionality of EU legislation, that almost naturally launches the series of articles on the EU Judicial Architecture in Part II, which in turn leads to Part III on Judicial Protection of Individuals.

Part I on EU Constitutional Law opens with a 1991 article on the relation between Constitutional Law and Community law in the author's native PortugLaw opens with a 1991 article on the relation between Constitutional Law and Community law in the author's native PortugLaw and Community law in the author's native Portuglaw in the author's native Portugal.

[2] The Court's construction of the autonomy of EU law has a strong normative undertone, and its reasoning relies on the idea that the EU forms a constitutional order founded on the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU.

According to Judge Posner, the «modern» law - review article — with its focus on flavor - of - the - day constitutional theories and adjunctive interdisciplinary issues — now magnifies

Meanwhile, the access right's constitutional overtones were suggested by three developments: the incorporation of a right of access in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (article 42) in 2000, the EU's accession to the Aarhus Treaty and subsequent adoption of the Aarhus Regulation on Access to Information (Regulation 1367/06) in 2006, and increasingly explicit references to transparency's auxiliary role in facilitating the democratic life of the Union, most notably in the Access Info Europe and In «t Veld v Council case law.

This could be argued to endorse the view expressed by the author on this blog in November that the «constitutional requirements» clause in Article 50 (1) functions as the bridge between the domestic legal order and the Union legal order, and thus the giving and potential revocation of notice under Article 50 (2) is purely a matter of domestic law.

The accusations came after a 2005 constitutional law class in which Peltz, a nationally known authority on the First Amendment and freedom of information, was described as having criticized affirmative action and having displayed a belittling satirical article from The Onion on Rosa Parks.

He has also written numerous other articles and delivered speeches, primarily on international law and constitutional issues.

Commentary on news events and recent court opinions, primarily in constitutional law, and links to related articles.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thConstitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of llaw, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of lawlaw.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that upon the entry into force of the Constitution, the legislature had the constitutional duty to regulate the citizenship relations of the Republic of Lithuania, inter alia, to correct the legal regulation established in the Law on Citizenship (wording of 5 December 1991 with subsequent amendments and supplements, made prior to the entry into force of the 1992 Constitution) and the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 so that this legal regulation would comply with the provisions of the Constitution, inter alia, ArticConstitutional Court that upon the entry into force of the Constitution, the legislature had the constitutional duty to regulate the citizenship relations of the Republic of Lithuania, inter alia, to correct the legal regulation established in the Law on Citizenship (wording of 5 December 1991 with subsequent amendments and supplements, made prior to the entry into force of the 1992 Constitution) and the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 so that this legal regulation would comply with the provisions of the Constitution, inter alia, Articconstitutional duty to regulate the citizenship relations of the Republic of Lithuania, inter alia, to correct the legal regulation established in the Law on Citizenship (wording of 5 December 1991 with subsequent amendments and supplements, made prior to the entry into force of the 1992 Constitution) and the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 so that this legal regulation would comply with the provisions of the Constitution, inter alia, Article 12 thereoon Citizenship (wording of 5 December 1991 with subsequent amendments and supplements, made prior to the entry into force of the 1992 Constitution) and the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 so that this legal regulation would comply with the provisions of the Constitution, inter alia, Article 12 thereoOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 so that this legal regulation would comply with the provisions of the Constitution, inter alia, Article 12 thereoon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 so that this legal regulation would comply with the provisions of the Constitution, inter alia, Article 12 thereof.

In addition, on the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thConstitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of llaw, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of llaw were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of lawlaw.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thConstitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of llaw, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of lawlaw.

-- the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 and Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship to the extent that it provides that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states, shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time, and whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship to the extent that it provides that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states, shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time, and whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lawlaw.

To recognise that Paragraph 3 (wording of 2 July 1997, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1997, No. 67 - 1669) of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lawlaw.

-- the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, and who are residing in other states, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, and who are residing in other states, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lawlaw;

The fact that the [domestic Constitutional Court] gave a ruling on the compatibility of the provisions of national law... with the provisions of the [national] Constitution which the referring court regarded as constituting, in essence, the same regulatory parameters as [EU law] has no bearing on the obligation, laid down in Article 267 TFEU, to refer questions concerning the interpretation of EU law to the Court of Justice (C - 322 / 16, paras 21 & 23 - 25, references omitted and emphases added).

-- the provision «the following persons shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated)» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, are not considered as citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, are not considered as citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lawlaw;

On the compliance of Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 1 and Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution, with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law, on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 17 September 2002 and 6 April 2006) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship with Articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution, and on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of laOn the compliance of Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 1 and Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution, with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law, on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 17 September 2002 and 6 April 2006) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship with Articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution, and on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution, with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law, on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 17 September 2002 and 6 April 2006) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship with Articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution, and on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of laon Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution, with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law, on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 17 September 2002 and 6 April 2006) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship with Articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution, and on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of llaw, on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 17 September 2002 and 6 April 2006) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship with Articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution, and on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of laon the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 17 September 2002 and 6 April 2006) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship with Articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution, and on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship with Articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution, and on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of laon Citizenship with Articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution, and on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of laon the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of laon the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of laon Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lawlaw.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thConstitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of llaw, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of lawlaw.

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing, on 11 October 2006, considered case No. 45/03-36 / 04 subsequent to the following petitions:

To recognise that Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 95 - 4088) of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lawlaw.

The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 and Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that it provides that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states, shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time, and whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship, to the extent that it provides that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states, shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time, and whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lawlaw.

Having held that the provision «provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated» of Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated) shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren repatriated shall not be considered citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justiLaw on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated) shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren repatriated shall not be considered citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated) shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren repatriated shall not be considered citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justilaw, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated) shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren repatriated shall not be considered citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principConstitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated) shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren repatriated shall not be considered citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justilaw to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren repatriated shall not be considered citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principconstitutional principle of justice.

To recognise that Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1995, No. 90 - 2014) of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lawlaw.

A group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, have applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship is not in conflict with Articles 29 and 12 of the Constitution.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thConstitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of lawlaw.

Having held that the provision «provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated» of Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justiLaw on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justilaw, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principConstitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justilaw to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principconstitutional principle of justice.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was (as was Paragraph 3 (wordings of 19 October 1995 and 2 July 1997) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was (as was Paragraph 3 (wordings of 19 October 1995 and 2 July 1997) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thConstitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was (as was Paragraph 3 (wordings of 19 October 1995 and 2 July 1997) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was (as was Paragraph 3 (wordings of 19 October 1995 and 2 July 1997) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was (as was Paragraph 3 (wordings of 19 October 1995 and 2 July 1997) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was (as was Paragraph 3 (wordings of 19 October 1995 and 2 July 1997) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of llaw, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of lawlaw.

To recognise that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland or settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 22 - 347) of Item 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and, as to its content, it was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and, as to its content, it was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and, as to its content, it was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and, as to its content, it was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of llaw, and, as to its content, it was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lawlaw.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thConstitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of llaw, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of lawlaw.

Rich has written and published a wide variety of law review articles on corporate law, appellate practice, and constitutional issues, and has taught and chaired seminars on commercial litigation topics.

In R (on the application of Gina Miller and Ors) v The Secretary of State for the European Union, the High Court, in a masterly exposition of the principles of constitutional law and statutory interpretation, held that the Secretary of State did not have the power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice under Article 50 and thereby begin the process under which the United Kingdom will leave the European Union.

The article provides a summary of recent state supreme court cases in which opponents of civil liability reform have challenged reform laws, mostly on constitutional grounds.

Kim Stanton's new article on Charter equality jurisprudence has been published in the latest volume of the National Journal of Constitutional Law.

My article on the Evans case — «A Tangled Constitutional Web: The Black - Spider Memos and the British Constitution's Relational Architecture» — was published in Public Law in October 2015.

Indeed, as noted recently by L.S. Rossi, the ECJ has never identified the constitutional identity clause enshrined in Article 4 (2) TEU as the privileged arena to deal the multilevel protection fundamental rights in its case law on the application of.

Posted by Administrators on May 21, 2012 at 03:57 PM in Article Spotlight, Constitutional thoughts, Criminal Law, Culture, Current Affairs, Dan Markel Permalink

Eric Mogilnicki is quoted in a Bloomberg Law article regarding potential constitutional challenges faced by the CFPB following the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on January 31.

Moving on to privacy rights of a Constitutional nature, Jotwell (the Journal of Things We Like (Lots), a relatively new publication which is to law review articles what Blawg Review is to blawg posts, takes a look at group searches and Fourth Amendment rights.

I just noticed that a blog post of mine on Slaw about Ron Livingston was cited in an article by Rebecca Phillips in the Fall 2010 issue of the Campbell Law Review, Constitutional Protection for Nonmedia Defendants: Should There be a Distinction Between You and Larry King?