Contacts      Write us       KK TV       Foto       Subscription Lietuviškai По-русски English
2019 December 5 Thursday
 

Who is who in the Post-Soviet Lithuania?

2009-06-01 15:49 | Justice | Comments: (29)

Zenonas Jurgelevičius

Land-reform or land-robbery?

Behind the scenes of Post-Soviet Lithuania

by Zenonas Jurgelevičius zenonasenator@gmail.com

Member of the Lithuanian Human Rights Centre

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits”

(The Sermon on the Mount)

Part One

Was it really necessary to legally restore the rights of ownership of the land-owners?

The more time elapses since the eleventh of March, 1990, the clearer it becomes that post-soviet reality does essentially differ from the fine-sounding declarations of those days. Basically, this difference is shown by the fact that the post-soviet Lithuanian state denies its citizens the Human right to make use of the land either acquired by themselves or by way of inheritance. Whenever this Human rights is being safeguarded in a state, we call this state a state under the rule of law (carrying out its direct functions), whenever this Human right is being denied, it is by no means a state under the rule of law.

Far from safeguarding these Human rights, the law-giver of post-soviet Lithuania “time and again- is arbitrarily creating ever new “laws” regulating the denial of these rights (be it the “land reform” or the so-called “restoration of rights of ownership”). The implementation of the “legal norms of these legal acts” has to be paid for by state funds (i.e. by the tax-payers, among them also those, from whom the real property was illegally taken away). In their legal sense the mentioned “legal acts” are openly inconsistent with the binding legal norms of the valid Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the international legal acts signed and ratified by the Republic of Lithuania.

The Supreme Council of Lithuania, when adopting the legal act “Concerning the restoration of the independent Lithuanian state” as early as March 11th, 1990, solemnly committed itself: “…The State of Lithuania stresses its loyalty to the commonly acknowledged principles of international law, it safeguards the Human rights, the citizens’ rights and the rights of minorities”. Article 1 of the basic legal document of international law of its period safeguarding the Human rights, namely the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (of December 10th, 1948), stipulates: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”, and Article 17: (1) “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others” as well as (2) “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”. That way the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania committed itself to implement the legal norms safeguarding the freedom of man as well as equal rights, commonly accepted in all countries of the civilized world. Certainly no further explanation is required to show that a person who is not equal before the law or who is not allowed to make unrestricted use of the fruits of his work (or who is not allowed to inherit the fruits of the work of his parents and the real estate legitimately acquired from the fruits of this work) can by no means be called free. Later on the legal norms of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” were completed by the legal rules of paragraph 1 (“Protection of private property”) of the first protocol of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law”. The Republic of Lithuania ratified the first protocol of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on the seventh of December, 1995 by way of law Nr. I-1117. On May 27th, 1996, the Republic of Lithuania deposited the ratification documents with the Council of Europe. The legal regulations of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania adopted on October 25th, 1992, by means of a public referendum of the citizen of the Republic of Lithuania, namely “Property shall be inviolable”, “The rights of ownership shall be protected by law” and “Property may only be seized for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and must be justly compensated for” are practically analogous to these legal norms.

By ratifying the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Republic of Lithuania ” by means of Article 1 of this Convention – did automatically guarantee that its domestic law was consistent with the legal regulations of the Convention and it did, furthermore, commit itself to the non-violation of the material rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. According to the third part of Article 138 of the Lithuanian Constitution as well as according to Article 12 of the Lithuanian law “Concerning the international treaties of the Republic of Lithuania” of May 21st, 1991, valid at the time of the ratification, the Convention acquired the legal validity of a law of the Republic of Lithuania. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in it conclusion of January 24th, 1994, confirmed that the international treaties ratified by the Republic of Lithuania and having come into force, had the legal validity of a law of the Republic of Lithuania. The second part of Article 11 of the law Nr. VIII-1248 “Law concerning international treaties”, adopted by the Lithuanian Seimas (Parliament) on June 22nd, 1999, stipulated: “If an international treaty, having been ratified by the Republic of Lithuania, stipulates legal norms different from those of laws of the Republic of Lithuania and of other legal acts, the regulations of the international treaty of the Republic of Lithuania have to be applied”. However, although the Republic of Lithuania has signed and ratified the documents of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ” the office bearers of the governmental, administrative and judicial institutions of the Republic of Lithuania have not even started to apply the legal norms of this Convention in their legal practice, and they have not stopped their arbitrariness shown towards the legitimate land-owners of the Republic of Lithuania.

One possible objection to this might be that the post-soviet Lithuanian government, by adopting laws and by applying them in practice, did not violate the Human rights, as it was acting within the framework of Article 18 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, that is not the case, as the real estate, having been taken away from the legitimate land owners either by lying or by applying force, is, practically for nothing, surrendered to these “office bearers” and their relatives. For over 16 years now the legitimate land-owners have constantly been promised “a just compensation” for the land taken away from them. However, if a “just compensation” is being prepared, for what purpose is the forcible re-division of the rights of ownership of the inherited plots of land, being pursued in the name of the state, necessary? And for what reasons are the relations of the free-market economy (selling-purchasing), being the usual thing throughout the civilized world, not applied here? The so-called “land reform” in post-soviet Lithuania is being carried through by means of special laws of the Republic of Lithuania, which the Lithuanian Seimas newly adopted even after the coming into force of the European “Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” in Lithuania. By applying the above-mentioned special laws within the framework of the Lithuanian legal practice, the principle of equality before the law concerning the subjects of civil relations, as it is being established in Article 29 of the Lithuanian Constitution, in Article 1 of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” as well as in Article 14 of the European “Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” is constantly and grossly being violated. That is why the Lithuanian laws regulating the post-soviet “land reform” can by no means be compared with laws stipulating standardized restrictions oft he rights of all Lithuanian citizens (in accordance with the legal norms of Article 18 of the European “Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”.

Everybody knows that a criminal investigation is started, as soon as someone has inflicted a concrete damage upon another person. The fact of dispossessing land-owners of their real estate, which has been going on for over 16 years now, constitutes a concrete damage for these citizens. When starting to investigate a crime having been perpetrated, the question arises inevitably: “Who is the beneficiary?” And now, dear reader, I suggest to realize: Who are the people gaining profit from the laws newly splitting up the ownership rights of land-owners concerning their inherited real estate? In post-soviet Lithuania the dispossession of land-owners pursued by the “rulers” is being “legitimized” by two laws being applied at the same time causing great confusion. One of these laws is the law regulating the implementation of the “land reform”.

Let us see, whether the compulsory splitting up of the ownership rights of the land-owners, pursued by the post-soviet rulers, can at all be called “land reform”? The answer to this question can easily be found when comparing the current (post-soviet) “land reform” to the various land reforms implemented in Lithuania before. Just imagine: are there essential differences between the post-soviet “land reform” pursued currently in Lithuania and the land reforms implemented in independent Lithuania before the war as well as in the Soviet Republic of Lithuania?

1) When implementing the land reform in pre-war Lithuania, paragraph 5 of the then law on land reform stipulated to leave a minimum of 8 hectares for each land-owner’s family: “so that people might not arbitrarily be pushed below the poverty line, where no one is able to make a living”.

2) When implementing the Soviet land reform (however, no “common nationalization”, a lie, which is constantly being trumpeted from the high tribunes) ” there was also a certain norm fixed to be left for the land-owners by the Soviet laws regulating the implementation of the land reform: “The parliament decides to restrict the size of agricultural land pertaining to each single farm to a norm of 30 hectares, and to form a state land fund from the surplus of agricultural land exceeding this norm, with the intention of helping landless farmers and those owning little land to acquire land.

The whole land, being in the possession of the working population and the farmers, as well as the land, which will be turned over by the state to landless farmers and farmers owning only little land, shall be for the eternal use of farmers, which is hereby recognized. All attempts to do away with the personal property of farmers or against the will of the working farm population, by imposing on them a kolkhoz organization, will be severely punished, because this is doing damage to the interests of the people and the state” (quotation from the text of the “Declaration of the People’s Parliament” of July 22nd, 1940).

The post-soviet “land reform” differs from the land reforms carried through in either in pre-war independent Lithuania or in the “Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic” insofar as the laws of the Republic of Lithuania regulating the implementation of the post-soviet “land reform” do not provide for a minimum of land to be left for each legitimate land-owner, so that this person might make a living of his work on his own land for himself and his children. During the post-soviet “land reform” having been pursued for over 16 years now, pressure has been exerted on the legitimate land-owners who have been trying to have their own land be given back to them: should the land-owner not be willing to leave his land at the disposal of the office-bearer carrying through the “land reform”, his land will not at all be “restored” to him. Now it is for you to decide, whether the starving out of the legitimate land-owners and their children (by this means exerting pressure on them to renounce their land “voluntarily”), having been pursued for over 16 years now, can justly be called “land reform”.

The advocates of the post-soviet “land reform” gave one more pretext for enforcing the post-soviet “land reform” ” they maintain that by carrying through this “reform”, social justice is being realized. However, as concerns the ownership rights of the land-owners of the Republic of Lithuania to the land having been in their lawful possession up to June 15th, 1940 (the begin of the Soviet occupation of the independent Lithuanian state) there is no legal argumentation that they have ever been abolished” that is why no “realization of justice” is required to restore ownership rights, which, “de jure”, have never ceased to exist (further below you will find a detailed explanation).

Both the inventors of the post-soviet “land reform” and those office-bearers, who are enforcing it, thought up a non-existing suspension of the land-owners’ ownership rights, which to “restore” a so-called “social justice” had to be applied, instead of the common justice regulating the norms of Civil Law. By this special sort of justice the inventors of the post-soviet “land-reform” as well as the office-bearers enforcing it, understand the taking away of the land from the legitimate land-owners and the creating of new ownership rights for “land-owners” selected by those carrying through the “land reform”, in the name of the Lithuanian state. Additionally, I would stress that it is absolutely left to the discretion of the office-bearers enforcing the “land-reform”, to which persons they wish to allocate land. There is no equality of the citizens before the “special” Lithuanian laws regulating the post-soviet “land reform”. This special sort of “justice” is being presented to our naive and credulous general public as an undoubtedly positive achievement, evolving and appearing a the result of the implementation of the post-soviet “land reform”. Can this so-called “social justice” lead us towards the common weal? Let us think:

The real meaning of “social justice” was clearly and comprehensibly explained by the Austrian Nobel-prize winner and economist, Friedrich August von Hayek In his works he shows by way of striking arguments that “social justice” is but a means to acquire something, into the possession of which one cannot come by violating formal (normal) justice. The mere aim of persons or groups of persons enforcing “social justice”, is but to demand property for themselves, for the possession of which they did not work, i.e. to demand special privileges for themselves. However, in this world there is only one way to acquire property ” by the work of one’s on hands. A phenomenon like the appropriation of the fruits of work of someone else, has existed since the early days of mankind, although it was never equated with justice, on the contrary, it was always understood as injustice.

From the experience of our owns Soviet past we know that separating a part of the fruits of work of the working population from the person having earned it and allotting it to others, does not lead us to common well-being, but to common poverty. The same applies to the post-soviet separating part of the result of one’s work from the one, who has earned it and allotting it to others. If the whole population does not work, it will die of hunger. If only a tiny part of the population profits from “social justice”, this means that this part of the population is exploiting the working part of the population (i.e. lives parasitically at the expense of those who work). In the various editions of the “Dictionary of the contemporary Lithuanian language” (no matter, whether published during the period of the Soviet occupation or after it) the same word is used for the act of appropriation of the property of someone else, namely “theft”.

That is why the benefit of the alleged goal of the Post-soviet “land reform” leading towards “common well-being”, namely “social justice”, is being reaped by a group of politicizing Soviet specialists from the Nomenklatura. The members of this group, by this, are trying to act synchronously, even inviting other immoral citizens to join them, in order to steal the landed property belonging to others. By applying the aforementioned and similar other unlawful economic means against the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania they are making every effort to remain in power. For this reason it is unnecessary to look for any future positive results for the vast majority of the Lithuanian citizens by the implementation of the post-soviet “land reform”, which is why the compulsory splitting-up of the ownership rights to landed property, being enforced by the Lithuanian governmental structures, can by no means be called a land reform.

The other so-called law “legitimizing” the dispossessing of the land-owners being enforced by the rulers of post-soviet Lithuania, is called “law for the restoration of the ownership rights of land-owners” by its inventors. This very special “law” was adopted to reach the above goal by thus cancelling the Civil Code, which, throughout the world, is being applied to defend citizens’ ownership rights. We will explain further below, for whom this was necessary and for what reasons.

Neither the laws of the Republic of Lithuania nor the multiple explanations and interpretations of these laws by the Lithuanian Constitutional Court offer an unambiguous and definite answer to the question: “did the ownership rights held to the respective plots of land by the legitimate land-owners prior to the Soviet occupation of June 15th, 1940, really stop to exist “de jure”, and were special laws of the Republic of Lithuania required to restore them “de jure”? This question will be discussed additionally.

Generally speaking, the following laws having been adopted after March 11th,1990 (i.e. after the restoration of the independent Lithuanian state), are regulating the ownership rights held to the respective plots of land by the legitimate land-owners prior to the Soviet occupation of June 15th, 1940:

The first one of these laws is law Nr. I-1454 “Concerning the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of the citizens to their still existing land” having been adopted on June 18th, 1991 by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania (AT). The goal of this Lithuanian law is shown in paragraph one of its first section: “This law governs the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of those citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, whose real estate ” having been nationalized according to the laws of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic or otherwise unlawfully being surrendered into public property ” is in the possession of state, public or cooperative organizations (institutions) or else has been surrendered to private persons by these organizations”. Paragraph 4 of section two of this law, called “Conditions and regulations for the restoration of ownership rights” stipulates: “The ownership right to agricultural land will be restored to the persons mentioned in paragraph 2 of this law according to the land-reform projects of the corresponding territory established in accordance with the regulations …”. The quoted “land-reform projects” were established according to law Nr. I-1607 “Land-reform law” adopted by the Supreme Council of Lithuania (Parliament in formation) on July 25th, 1991, governing the rules regulating the implementation of the post-soviet land-reform. Both Lithuanian laws under consideration had, umpteen times been altered, enlarged and also been considered by the Lithuanian Constitutional Court, until the Lithuanian Parliament substituted them by newly-designed laws in 1997. The law Nr. I-1454 of June 18th, 1991, was substituted by law Nr. VIII-359 “Law on the restoration of the ownership rights of the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania regarding still existing real estate” adopted by the Lithuanian parliament on July 1st, 1997, whereas law Nr. I-1607 was substituted by law Nr. VIII-370 “Law altering the land-reform law” adopted by the Lithuanian parliament on July 2nd, 1997. These (new) laws, too, underwent umpteen alteration, changes, enlargements in the Lithuanian parliament. A part of the alterations of these laws were considered by the Lithuanian Constitutional Court, to examine, whether they were made in accordance with the legal norms of the Lithuanian Constitution. One must outline here that these Lithuanian laws are not implemented directly, but by virtue of post-law acts, namely by virtue of government instructions. This special procedure makes it even more difficult for citizens to understand the legal acts regulating the “restoration” of ownership rights.

In the concluding part of its decision in case no. 12/93 of May 27th, 1994, the Lithuanian Constitutional Court explained the legal essence of law Nr. I-1454, “Concerning the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of the citizens to their still existing land” adopted by the Lithuanian parliament on June 18th, 1991 (as well as of analogous laws of later date). This explanation made by the Lithuanian Constitutional Court was meant to clarify all uncertainties which might have arisen.

(Quote): “When acknowledging the continuance of the ownership rights, the Supreme Council (in its statement of November 15th, 1990) did “more or less- outline that there might be a situation, when it was impossible to give back the whole still existing real estate natura. In such a situation a compensation was provided for. The Constitutional Court underlines that the rule stipulating that a compensation will be made in case a real estate cannot be returned natura, is not inconsistent with the principles of inviolability of property and the protection of ownership rights, as a just compensation does also safeguard the restoration of ownership rights.

The realization of the mentioned rights has been firmly rooted in the law of the Republic of Lithuania of June 18th, 1991 “Concerning the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of the citizens to their still existing land”. Article 1 of this law explains: “This law governs the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of those citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, whose real estate ” having been nationalized according to the laws of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic or otherwise unlawfully being surrendered into public property ” is at the disposal of state, public or cooperative organizations (institutions)”.

From this it follows that the Supreme Council acknowledged by this law that the ownership rights to the real estate that had either been nationalized in accordance with legal acts of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic or else unlawfully surrendered into public ownership, have to be restored, moreover, that this has to be effected according to certain regulations and under certain conditions. It is the fact of the forcible violation of ownership rights on a huge scale, on the other hand the decision to carry through only a restricted restoration, which determined that the unlawfully abolished ownership rights of the former land-owners could not be protected by applying the legal norms of Civil Law valid then. That is why it was necessary to adopt the special law “Concerning the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of the citizens to their still existing land” (Unquote).

When looking for a legal sense in the quoted passage ” one finds that the uncertainties have even more grown instead of having been removed:

1) In this explanatory quotation, for some unknown reason, “law” is being equated with someone’s reluctance to return the real estate to the legitimate land-owners: “…there might be a situation, when it was impossible to give back the whole still existing real estate natura…” (Remark by the author of this article: after all the law was adopted for the return of still existing real estate! someone, however, did absolutely not wish that this should be carried through, and the malicious intent of this not disclosed “someone” became an essential part of the law);

2) “handed over for eternal use” (which, on the day of the adoption of this law, is in the possession of …) for undisclosed reasons the real estate is equated with government ownership;

3) “someone’s malicious intent”: “…on the other hand the decision to carry through only a restricted restoration…” “once again realized by means of a generally binding law…

It is absolutely unintelligible, what the quoted sentences should have in common with law? Who are those almighty ” who by their actions bring direct influence to bear onto the content of post-soviet Lithuanian laws as well as the fate of persons? We will, therefore, go on explaining:

We have learned from the explanations offered in the concluding part of the decision of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court in the case Nr. 12/93 of May 27th, 1994, that the Lithuanian law Nr. I-1454 of June 18th: ” This law governs the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of those citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, whose real estate ” having been nationalized according to the laws of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic or otherwise unlawfully being surrendered into public property ” is at the disposal of state, public or cooperative organizations (institutions)” and that: “… the decision to carry through only a restricted restoration, which determined that the unlawfully abolished ownership rights of the former land-owners could not be protected by applying the legal norms of Civil Law valid then”.

That means that by enforcing an undisclosed someone’s determination (see: “”¦ the decision to carry through only a restricted restoration, which determined that…) to influence the selfsame law “Concerning the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of the citizens to their still existing land”- the “legal” option was established not to implement this law in accordance with its direct purpose, as concerns certain citizens; i.e. the “legal” (because established in a law) option not to restore the ownership rights to all citizens alike. It is evident that no one would have been able to create the current situation of an uncontrollable robbery of land belonging to others, if the norms of the Civil Law applicable throughout the civilized world for the protection of ownership rights, had been applied for the protection of the ownership rights of the citizen of post-soviet Lithuania. However, the will of unknown persons prevented this ” and that is why laws were adopted, which provided for the robbery of other people’s landed property. In order to allow for the “lawful” robbery of other people’s real estate, the Lithuanian law-giver adapted the law meant for the restoration of the land-owners’ ownership rights to still existing real estate to this purpose. The content of this “law” is, what it is for one sole reason ” if the abolition of the ownership rights to still existing real estate had only been supported by documents from the period of Soviet occupation ” this fraud would sooner or later have come to light, as the ownership rights of the land-owners were by no means lawfully and with legal arguments abolished during the Soviet period. After revealing this fraud ” from among the legal land-owners of the Republic of Lithuania there would certainly have arisen a cry for justice. All this trouble would easily be avoided, if the ownership rights of the land-owners were abolished in the name of the independent Republic of Lithuania, although not by means of an open nationalization of the real estate of the land-owners, but by enforcing a “restoration” of the allegedly lawfully abolished ownership rights. This seems intricate to you, my dear readers? Then the post-soviet law-givers, the “restorers of ownership rights”, have attained their goal, and they have succeeded in leading you up the garden path.

Whether the ownership rights of the legitimate Lithuanian land-owners concerning their real estate acquired prior to the Soviet occupation of June 15th, 1940, had really been abolished “de jure”, was explained in detail in the decision of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court of May 27th, 1994 in case Nr. 12/93:

(Quote) “The Lithuanian law of March 11th, 1990 “šConcerning the restoration of the validity of the Lithuanian Constitution of May 12th, 1938′ that the effectiveness of the Lithuanian Constitution of May12th, 1938 “had unlawfully been suspended, when the Soviet Union perpetrated its aggression against the independent Lithuanian state and annexed it. That is, even the People’s Seimas, which had been formed in violation of the Lithuanian Constitution, was used to destroy the economic system established in the Constitution, and to force upon Lithuania the economic system of a foreign state by unconstitutional means. One of these acts of the People’s Seimas was the declaration concerning the proclamation of all Lithuanian land the property of the people, i.e. of the state. The following day the People’s Seimas adopted the “šDeclaration of the nationalization of the banks and the big companies’, later on other property was also nationalized. Enforcing such a general nationalization and destroying private ownership, did not only mean grossly violating the Lithuanian Constitution of 1938, but also forcibly denying the Human birth right to one’s own property. However, no lawful state ownership could arise and did not arise on the basis of these arbitrary acts of the occupational regime, as justice cannot arise from injustice (Translator: Ex iniuria ius non oritur). That is why the property taken away from the land-owners by such means has to be considered to be property being only “šde facto’ and temporarily administered by the state”. (Unquote).

Until the Soviet occupation of June 15th, 1940 ownership right in the independent Republic of Lithuania was defined as “the right, having been acquired in accordance with the laws, to use and to handle a property independent from third persons”. The Supreme Court of Lithuania explained in its decision of February 14th, 2000 in the Civil case Nr. 3K-3-173, that according to current terminology “handling” was tantamount to the right to have a property at one’s disposal. In post-soviet Lithuania (see: Civil Code, first part of paragraph 4.37) one understands by ownership right “”¦the right, at one’s own discretion, without violating laws and the rights and interests of others, to possess, to use and to have at one’s disposal an object within the framework of ownership right” ” from this it follows that ” in reality – the explanation of May 27th, 1994 made by the Lithuanian Constitutional Court does not explain to us who is the “de jure” and who the “de facto” owner of the land in post-soviet Lithuania. According to the explanation by the Lithuanian Constitutional Court the “de jure” owners of the land are those persons who were the lawful land-owners of the land being in their possession up to the Soviet occupation of the independent Lithuanian state made in June 15th, 1940, as: “…no lawful state ownership could arise and did not arise on the basis of these arbitrary acts of the occupational regime, as justice cannot arise from injustice”. However, at the same time the Lithuanian Constitutional Court states that: That is why the property taken away from the land-owners by such means has to be considered to be property being only “šde facto’ and temporarily administered by the state”. This ambiguity shows that the question of who is the lawful owner of a real estate is currently, unambiguously and officially unresolved in the name of the state in post-soviet Lithuania. This creates conditions for the so-called “legal” situation, according to which in reality the owner of the land of other people is the post-soviet Lithuanian caste of officials, at whose disposal this real estate is “de facto”, and which equates itself with the state.

One might object to this that the land-reform is, although very slowly, nevertheless being implemented in post-soviet Lithuania after all. The ownership rights re being restored to the land-owners, though only step by step. The land is being returned to its rightful owners and justice will prevail in the end, although very late.

However, I do maintain that under the cloak of the implementation of a nation-wide “land reform” in the name of the state no restoration of ownership rights is being carried through, but a general land-robbery. Only those plots of land are being returned to the rightful owners, which are of no value for the rulers of post-soviet Lithuania. This fact will now be shown:

Paragraph 1 of the Lithuanian law Nr. I-1454 “Concerning the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of the citizens to their still existing land” of June 18th, 1991 stipulates in “Goal of the law”, that: “This law governs the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of those citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, whose real estate ” having been nationalized according to the laws of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic or otherwise unlawfully being surrendered into public ownership ” is in the possession of state, public or cooperative organizations (institutions) or else has been surrendered to private persons by these organizations”.

Paragraph one of the first section of law Nr. VIII-359 of July 1st, 1997 “Law on the restoration of the ownership rights of the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania regarding still existing real estate “Goal and essence of the law” stipulates: “This law governs the implementation and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of land-owners, whose real estate had been either nationalized in accordance with Soviet Lithuanian laws or otherwise unlawfully expropriated and whose ownership rights were in the process of being restored according to the Lithuanian law “šConcerning the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of the citizens to their still existing land’, acknowledging the continuation of the restoration of the ownership rights, taking into account objective and public relations having been formed regarding property”.

Both these Lithuanian laws underline the fact, even in their very designations, that there are some locations on the surface of this our planet, which can have ceased to exist and that by virtue of these laws the ownership rights to real estate (land) are being restored to the land-owners. In paragraph one of both of these laws “Goal of the law” is explained that the ownership rights of the Lithuanian land-owners have ceased to continue due to the nationalization enforced in accordance with the laws of the Lithuanian Soviet Republic or because of other unlawful expropriation acts. Analogous statements can be found in the decisions of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court, passed, when investigating the constitutionality of various paragraphs of the laws Nr. I-1454 of June 18th, 1991 and of law Nr. VIII-359 of July 1st (as well as of their respective alterations), 1997. Let us, therefore, find out, whether the plots of land being in the lawful possession of land-owners up to June 15th, 1940, were really nationalized in accordance with Soviet Lithuanian laws? If they were in fact not nationalized, then did the retrospective regulation of the Lithuanian law adopted on March 11th, 1990 (the restoration of the independent Lithuanian state) concerning property “otherwise unlawfully expropriated” really create the fact of the “de jure” discontinuance of the ownership rights of the rightful land-owners to their real estate in the distant Soviet past? For this purpose we have to look into the legal acts of the period of the Soviet occupation regulating the ownership rights of land-owners:

On July 22nd, 1940 the occupational regime’s “People’s Seimas” (Parliament) adopted the “Declaration of the People’s Seimas regarding the surrender of the land into the state’s ownership”. The future legal status of the landed property was defined by the following three points of this declaration:

“Declaring the will of all workers and being guided by the vital interests of the working farmers, the People’s Seimas decides to restrict the size of agricultural land pertaining to each single farm to a norm of 30 hectares, and to form a state land fund from the surplus of agricultural land exceeding this norm, with the intention of helping landless farmers and those owning little land to acquire land.

The whole land, being in the possession of the working population and the farmers, as well as the land, which will be turned over by the state to landless farmers and farmers owning only little land, shall be for the eternal use of farmers, which is hereby recognized. All attempts to do away with the personal property of farmers or against the will of the working farm population, by imposing on them a kolkhoz organization, will be severely punished, because this is doing damage to the interests of the people and the state.”

The legal term “nationalization” is not all being mentioned in the “Declaration of the People’s Seimas regarding the surrender of the land into the state’s ownership” of July 22nd, 1940.

Article 9 of the Constitution of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic of 1940 (having supreme legal validity as a legal act) additionally explained the stipulations of the declaration of July 22nd, 1940:

“The land, being occupied by farmsteads, is being confirmed to be for the free use of the farmers for an unrestricted period”.

The regulation of article 10 of this constitution further explains that: “The land, being occupied by farmsteads, having been confirmed to be for the free use of the farmers for an unrestricted period within the framework of the laws” is the personal property of these citizens, as it stated that:

“The law protects the personal ownership rights of citizens to the income and the savings resulting from their work, to a family home and farming land for their subsistence, to the farming inventory and household appliances, to objects for personal use and convenience, as well as the personal ownership rights of the citizens”.

This article of the Soviet Lithuanian constitution will be explained additionally. The then Soviet people’s commissioner of justice, Povilas Pakarklis, explained the more important regulations of the then constitution of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic on page 9 of the newspaper “Tiesa” of December 5th, 1940 (Nr. 151):

“5. The question of property in the constitution of the Lithuanian SSR:

Article 10 of the constitution of the Lithuanian SSR stipulates, that the personal property of citizens is protected by law. This ruins the assertions of the enemies of socialism, that property does not exist within the Soviet framework.

Within the Soviet framework no one is entitled to rob workers, farmers or employees of the money earned by their work. Likewise no one has the right to throw out a farmer of his own farmstead, and to seize possession of it for himself. Within the Soviet framework personal property is not inconsistent with socialist property, it is fully a result of it, as it is the fruit of the participation of workers and farmers in the socialist production, it is the product of their work”.

After having studied these documents, it becomes evident that the entire Lithuanian land did really not become state property in 1940 (understanding the state as the owner). In the declaration of July 22nd, 1940 the people and the state are being equated and it is stressed that: “from this very day those, who till the land, do own the land” and it is explained how the people will own it. This equation of people and state does fully correspond to the foundations of law systematized by the English jurist and philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) ” on which even today the legal systems of many states of the civilized world are based. According to John Locke it is the people who create the state, in order to protect their property. This means that the territory of the state having been created by the people, consists of the rightfully owned landed property of the people (each single owner seen separately) who created the state. The conclusion that the creators of the declaration of the People’s Seimas of were guided by the foundations of law systematized by John Locke, is undeniably corroborated by the official documents of that period, quoted by me.

If all landed property had actually become the property of the state in accordance with the declaration of the People’s Seimas of July 22nd, 1940, the occupational regime would not have been under an obligation to establish a land fund and to adopt the decision of the council of ministers of the Lithuanian Soviet Republic of August 5th, 1940 called: “Decision of the council of ministers concerning the foundation of a fund of state land”. Instead of founding a fund of state land, the “state land” already owned would instead have been split up in accordance with arbitrary criteria ” just the way it was done after March 11th, 1990 (the restoration of the independent Lithuanian state). Nevertheless a fund of state land was formed in 1940. For each single plot of land surrendered into this fund, a concrete document stating the nationalization of this plot of land, was drawn up. The landed property required for the foundation of this fund of state land had to be formed by the district land committees, and lists had to be sent to the agricultural commission of the county by August 7th, 1940. The inventors and enforcers of the post-soviet “land reform” do not at all take these facts into account.

Prior to the Soviet occupation of June 15th, 1940 there were 332050 farmsteads in Lithuania, the owners of which possessed up to 30 hectares of land (72%). They owned 3.364.970 hectares (74,6%) of the whole arable land in the pre-war Lithuanian state, and the Soviet occupation did not abolish their ownership rights “de jure” furnishing legal arguments. A historical fact: the farmsteads holding up to 30 hectares of land, which had not been surrendered into the state land fund, stayed in the rightful possession of their owners until the collectivization enforced from 1947 to 1950.

18.1% of the farmers owning up to 30 hectares of land, were in possession of only between one and five hectares, 27.2% owned 5 to 10 hectares, 32.6% owned 10 to 20 hectares, and 12.1% were in possession of more than 10 up to 30 hectares. Only 10% of all farmers owned land of more than 30 hectares. Currently the children of the small landholding farmers of that period have grown up and have started their own families ” which is why there are more rightful heirs of the landed property, as there were owners prior to the Soviet occupation of June 15th, 1940. And that is why the post-soviet regime in Lithuania is taking away the landed property, which is the only basis of the livelihood of the families of these small farmers, from these small landholders.

In accordance with a post-soviet Lithuanian law one of the documents proving the ownership to a real estate is a certification issued by the Lithuanian state archives concerning the possession of landed property held in rightful ownership prior to June 15th, 1940 (Soviet occupation). Even in cases, when there is a special remark on the certification obtained from the state archives, namely “Not surrendered into the state land fund” the question of the ownership of this plot of land is resolved according to the special laws of post-soviet Lithuania. This means that the ownership rights of the land-owner, which had “de jure” never been abolished prior to March 11th, 1990 (restoration of the independent Lithuanian state) are openly being trampled all over by the arbitrariness of the post-soviet Lithuanian bureaucrats.

After June 15th, 1940, those parts of the land owned by citizens exceeding 30 hectares were surrendered into the state land fund of the Lithuanian Soviet Republic following the declaration of the “People’s Seimas” of July 22nd, 1940. Even the ownership rights of these citizens held to those parts of their land exceeding the fixed area of 30 hectares, were never abolished “de jure”, as the takeover of this land by the state land fund following the “Declaration of the People’s Seimas” of July 22nd, 1940, was unlawful, as it was implemented, after the army of a foreign state had forcibly occupied the territory of the Lithuanian state, i.e. by use of force.

It is quite obvious from the submitted documents that the Lithuanian laws, the instructions of the Lithuanian government, the decisions of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court, the judgments and decisions of Lithuanian courts of all categories of jurisdiction as well as all other documents of Lithuanian governmental and administrative institutions are openly untruthful concerning this matter, insofar as they all maintain that all the land belonging to Lithuanian citizens had been nationalized, and that this nationalization of the land did “de jure” abolish the continuation of the ownership rights to their real estate (landed property).

2. Let us see: could it be that the ownership rights of Lithuanian citizen held with respect to their landed property were “de jure” abolished by their joining the kolkhozes? As early as 1947, when starting to enforce the Soviet Lithuanian collectivization of the farmsteads, agricultural cooperatives (the future kolkhozes) were formed. In Lithuanian libraries the original statutes of these agricultural cooperatives have been preserved. These statutes, beforehand, stress the voluntary nature of the act of joining the agricultural cooperatives. These statutes further stipulate that ” … it is certified that the land … is surrendered to the cooperative for unlimited use, i.e. for ever, and it can neither be purchased or sold, nor be rented out by the cooperative”. These agricultural cooperatives (later on called kolkhozes) by self-dissolution disappeared after the restoration of the independent Lithuanian state on March 11th, 1990. As the not even the Soviet statutes permitted to resell and split up the land which was at the disposal of these cooperatives, it is obvious that the land, after the self-dissolution of these cooperatives (kolkhozes), had to be given back to the rightful owners. This means that the membership of citizen in these Soviet cooperatives has “de jure” never abolished the ownership rights of the rightful land-owners to their land.

3. Apart from the nationalization of the land enforced following the laws of Soviet Lithuania, the Lithuanian law Nr. I-1454 of June 18th, 1991 “Concerning the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of the citizens to their still existing land” outlines that there is also another sort of taking into public ownership the land having been owned by land-owners up to June 15th, 1940, namely: “or otherwise unlawfully being surrendered into public ownership “. Let us find out, whether the law authorities of post-soviet Lithuania are once again wrong here:

This general legal description in the Lithuanian law Nr. I-1454 of June 18th, 1991, comprising the whole period from June 15th, 1940 (the beginning of the Soviet occupation) up to March 11th, 1990 the restoration of the independent Lithuanian state) and governing the surrender of private landed property into state ownership, has a number of essential shortcomings:

1) From a legal standpoint this is merely a general phrase meaning nothing special (and, therefore, being meaningless).

2) Further, this phrase was invented by the Lithuanian law-givers even after the end of the occupation of the Lithuanian state, i.e. after March 11th, 1990. It is being projected retrospectively into the period of the Soviet occupation (prior to March 11th, 1990) artificially creating within this past period a situation, the effect of which is being used to enforce the Lithuanian law Nr. I-1454 of June 18th, 1991 and the Lithuanian law Nr. VIII-359 of July 1st, 1997, i.e. taking away the landed property from the land-owners by use of force and abolishing by these laws the ownership rights to the owners’ real estate which had been acquired prior to June 15th, 1940. That is why this “legal” phrase cannot but be classified either as an absolute legal absurdity or as a constituent part of a criminal activity. Undoubtedly the rule “lex retro non agit” is applicable in the area of legal regulation in accordance with the theory of law, i.e. a legal act cannot have a retrospective effect. In the sphere of civil law a legal act cannot have a retrospective effect, as this would improve the legal status for some legal subjects, however, decrease the legal status of other legal subjects.

The fact that the rightful Lithuanian land-owners became “former owners” and “pretenders” (to their landed property) only after the restoration of the independent Lithuanian state on March 11th, 1990, is proven by the content of section three of paragraph 7 of law Nr. XI-3066 adopted by the Supreme Council of the Lithuanian Soviet Republic on July 4th, 1989: “…The right of priority to establish a farmstead belongs to the rightful heirs of this land, who are living and working in this place”. This proves that on July 4th, 1989, the ownership rights of the rightful land-owners to their inherited land had not been abolished in the Lithuanian Soviet Republic “de jure”, and that this legal fact corroborating the continuance of the ownership rights and protected by the of the rightful land-owners was officially acknowledged and protected by the then Soviet Lithuanian laws.

The assertion, invented on March 11th, 1990 by the post-soviet law experts, namely, that the ownership rights of the rightful Lithuanian land-owners had been abolished in the period of the Soviet occupation 1990-03-11 or “otherwise unlawfully expropriated” does not create a “de jure” abolition of the ownership rights of the rightful land-owners in the past. The allegedly enforced “abolitions” of the ownership rights of the rightful land-owners in the Soviet period are not substantiated by any documents, they were simply cooked up by the rulers of Lithuania to create a mirage in the imagination of the Lithuanian citizens in order to be able to steal the property of others, this being a constituent part of the economic crime being perpetrated by these people.

It is quite obvious from the documents submitted by me, that the ownership rights to landed property, having been acquired prior to June 15th, 1940, had never been abolished “de jure” and with legal arguments, and that it was, therefore, not necessary to “restore” them by means of any special Lithuanian laws. This means that those “special” Lithuanian laws were not meant for the restoration of the ownership rights of the rightful land-owners, but for some other goal. This goal has already been explained further above in this article, it is the unlawful splitting-up of the ownership rights to landed property and the legitimization of the splitting-up in the name of the Lithuanian state.

Who did and when abolish the ownership rights of land owners to landed property in Lithuania.

On March 11th, 1990 a legal obstacle to the natural return of landed property to the rightful land-owners was created by the rule “The restoration of the validity of the Lithuanian Constitution of 1938 does not, by itself, restore the laws valid in the Republic of Lithuania prior to June 15th, 1940” of point 4 of the law “Concerning the restoration of the validity of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania of 1938”. This decision, passed by the deputies of the Supreme Council of Lithuania and evidently going beyond the authority given them by the people, was in its legal essence the abolition of the ownership rights of the landowners, enforced in the name of the independent Republic of Lithuania.

As the then Supreme Council of Lithuania had not been authorized by the people of Lithuania to pass such a decision which was disregarding the comprehension of fundamental justice, established in the very foundations of international law, the rule “The restoration of the validity of the Lithuanian Constitution of 1938 does not, by itself, restore the laws valid in the Republic of Lithuania prior to June 15th, 1940” of point 4 of the law “Concerning the restoration of the validity of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania of 1938” adopted by the Supreme Council of Lithuania on March 11th, 1990, is null and void from the very beginning.

I am sure that my dear readers, having perused this article, will understand that post-soviet reality is quite different from what the rulers of Lithuania pretend it is.

Part two: “The creation of a legal, but unjust system, in post-soviet Lithuania”

In part one of the legal analysis of the post-soviet “land reform” and the post-soviet “restoration of ownership rights”: Was it really necessary to legally restore the rights of ownership of the land-owners?” already explained what -soviet reality really is like ” quite different from what the “rulers” make believe. This explanation made clear that both the post-soviet “land reform” and the post-soviet “restoration of ownership rights” are ” in their legal sense ” nothing else but legal means, meant to take away the land from the land-owners and to support this dispossession legally (as legal acts). It has been proven that both the post-soviet “land reform” as well as the post-soviet “restoration of ownership rights” are “in their legal essence- nothing but unlawful means intended to take away the landed property from the land-owners and then establish this dispossession in laws (as would-be legal acts).

It has also been demonstrated that these unlawful actions (as well as the “legal” acts governing these actions) being enforced by the “rulers” are openly violating legal acts of higher legal validity ” among them also the international conventions signed and ratified by the Republic of Lithuania.

Not complying with these international obligations having been confirmed by themselves, the Lithuanian Seimas-Parliament “even after coming into force of the European Convention on Human Rights- adopts new special Lithuanian laws (Law Nr. VIII-359 on July 1st, 1997 and later on even alterations of and annexes to this law), which are in striking contrast to the norms of Civil law and which are legitimizing criminal actions punishable according to the norms of punishable crimes.

The office bearers by enforcing this “law” are “by use of force- taking away from the rightful land-owners the landed property having been inherited by them (I would stress that this act is being called by the name “restoration of ownership rights” in post-soviet Lithuania). By enforcing these “special” laws (which are solely intended to “restore” ownership rights, which had never been abolished “de jure”) even after signing and ratifying the European Convention of Human Rights, the Lithuanian rulers are quite simply attempting to disregard their international obligations by leaning on their domestic laws. However, such attempts by High Contracting Parties to the Convention, to justify the non-compliance with an international Convention by their domestic laws, is prohibited by the legal principle pacta sunt servanda embodied in Article 26 of the “Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties” of 1969. This shows that even the norms of this Convention are quite obviously being violated in post-soviet Lithuania. The sole reason why the legal norms of international Conventions are not being complied with, is that someone could “lawfully” seize possession of someone’s else’s landed property.

One cannot but stress that laws of such content (after Lithuanian had joined the European Convention on Human Rights) could not all be adopted without violating the legal norms stipulated by this Convention. From this it follows that “after joining the European Convention on Human Rights- the “rulers” of the Lithuanian Republic are constantly and seriously violating this Convention as well as the “Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties” of 1969, and they are doing this deliberately.

I would like to point out “not sticking to the usual order of information being supplied- that the violations of the European Convention on Human Rights being perpetrated by the government of the Republic of Lithuania, are by no means limited to the non-compliance of the legal norms stipulated by this Convention and to the adoption and enforcement of domestic laws, in their legal essence obviously being in contradiction to the Convention. The post-soviet Lithuanian government has explained, by means of legal acts, that the European Convention on Human Rights does not protect the ownership rights of land-owners. I will now show, how this mass deception of the Lithuanian people is being incorporated in the post-soviet Lithuanian law:

SUMMARY IXP 136 OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR EUROPEAN LAW, made on December 20th, 2000 “Concerning the compliance with the law of the European Union of the planned alteration of article 10 of the law referring to the restoration of the ownership rights of Lithuanian land-owners to their landed property”, which the Department for European law of the Lithuanian government had prepared for the Lithuanian Parliament, and which had been signed by the managing director of this institution, Vilenas Vadapalas, explains: “”¦The question of the restitution of property does not fall into the sphere of the application of paragraph 1 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights”. The Lithuanian original text of this document can be accessed in the network of the Lithuanian Seimas-Parliament under: http://www3.lrs.lt/cgi-bin/preps2?Condition1=117550

SUMMARY IXP 1062 OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR EUROPEAN LAW, made on October 19th, 2001 “Concerning the compliance with the law of the European Union of the planned alteration of article 16 of the law referring to the restoration of the ownership rights of Lithuanian land-owners to their landed property”, which the Department for European law of the Lithuanian government had prepared for the Lithuanian Parliament, and which had been signed by the managing director of this institution, Vilenas Vadapalas, explains: “”¦Paragraph 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 makes no mention of the restoration of ownership rights, it only stipulates the right of every physical and juridical person to use one’s property without interferences. That is why the mentioned stipulations of Paragraph 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention are not applicable here. We would stress that the European Court of Human Rights has been pointing out throughout the Court’s practice that Paragraph 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention does not comprise the problem of the restoration of ownership rights (restitution). The European Court of Human Right, in the case of Brežny v. Slovakija (1996) stressed that the expropriation of property constitutes a single case, which does not create a continuing situation, which is why the ownership rights of the applicant, after the elapse of many years, have ceased to exist. The Lithuanian original text of this document can be accessed in the network of the Lithuanian Seimas-Parliament under:

http://www3.lrs.lt/cgi-bin/preps2?Condition1=152442http://www3.lrs.lt/cgi-bin/preps2?Condition1=152442

SUMMARY IXP 1087 OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR EUROPEAN LAW, made on November 9th, 2001 “Concerning the projected law altering paragraph 3.92 of the Lithuanian Civil Code” which the Department for European law of the Lithuanian government had prepared for the Lithuanian Parliament, and which had been signed by the deputy managing director of this institution, Kriaučiūnas, explains: “”¦The stipulations of paragraph 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the protection of ownership rights are basically not applicable for ownership relations between private persons. The Lithuanian original text of this document can be accessed in the network of the Lithuanian Seimas-Parliament under: http://www3.lrs.lt/cgi-bin/preps2?Condition1=153714

SUMMARY IXP 1140 OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR EUROPEAN LAW, made on November 13th, 2001 “Concerning the compliance with the law of the European Union of the planned alteration of articles 12, 13 and 16 of the law referring to the restoration of the ownership rights of Lithuanian land-owners to their landed property”, which the Department for European law of the Lithuanian government had prepared for the Lithuanian Parliament, and which had been signed by the deputy managing director of this institution, M. Anciuvienė, explains: “The problem of the restoration of ownership rights is not embraced by the stipulations of paragraph 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950, which only stipulates the right of every physical and juridical person to use one’s property without interferences. That is why the mentioned stipulations of Paragraph 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention are not applicable as concerns the law project. The European Court of Human Right, in the case of Brežny v. Slovakija (1996) stressed that the expropriation of property constitutes a single case, which does not create a continuing situation, which is why the ownership rights of the applicant, after the elapse of many years, have ceased to exist”. The Lithuanian original text of this document can be accessed in the network of the Lithuanian Seimas-Parliament under:

http://www3.lrs.lt/cgi-bin/preps2?Condition1=153887http://www3.lrs.lt/cgi-bin/preps2?Condition1=153887

However, the European Court of Human Rights, in his recent case-law, rejected this obvious lie in his judgment of January 23rd, 2001 in the case Brumarescu v. Romania (application no. 28342/95). The Court unanimously decided that the respondent state had to restitute to the applicant the house and land in issue within six months and, failing this, to pay to the applicant a compensation of equivalent value. This judgment was adopted, although the agent of the respondent government had stated that the house had become the state’s property by means of legal instruments (i.e. by means of the nationalization of 1950), and that the way these instruments were implemented, did not fall under the Court’s jurisdiction, because this question was for the legislators to decide. The Court, however, held that there was a violation of paragraph 1 of protocol 1 of the Convention.

Further above in this article we have already shown that in our opinion there had been no general nationalization at all in Lithuania, and that it is only the post-soviet Lithuanian office-bearers who are abolishing the ownership rights to landed property, which, during Soviet rule, had never been abolished “de jure”. That is why the stipulations of paragraph 1 of protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights undoubtedly do protect the ownership rights of the rightful Lithuanian land-owners.

Until 1996 the Lithuanian rulers might have tried to justify their actions by their ignorance of the law and possible by the assertion that they had arbitrarily been deceived by someone. I am here talking absolutely earnestly about the possible misleading of the “people’s confidants”. Only those who do not understand the system by which our state is being ruled, can think that the people had elected and authorized their prudent representatives by means of free elections in order to govern the state, and that these elected representatives were dealing with this hard kind of work. I am, however, forced to heavily disappoint such naive persons. Ever since the restitution of independence on March 11th, 1990, there advisers have been working for the Lithuanian legislative and executive bodies, which had been neither elected nor appointed by the people. In the first part of this article I quoted a sentence from the concluding section of the decision by the Lithuanian Constitution Court of May 27th, 1994 in case Nr. 12/93, concerning the intervention of third parties in the legislative process in Lithuania. It is not to be denied that this was the staff of advisers trying to enforce their will. This is why the voters should come to think, whether it is worth while electing persons into the state institutions, which cannot do without the services of unknown advisers.

After digressing for a short while from the main line of the article, I will go on explaining, why “at least after 1996- the Lithuanian rulers could no longer hush up their shady actions by their alleged ignorance of the law and the deception by other people (even in such cases ignorance is no excuse for not enforcing binding legal norms).

In 1996 a working group of the Human Rights Association (LŽTGA) specializing in ownership rights, and headed by me, collected information bases on arguments that the adoption of the notorious declaration of July 22nd, 1940 did not mean that the landed property of all Lithuanian citizens had become the property of the state (understanding the state as the owner). In the first part of this article it had been shown that by adopting this “declaration” the state did by no means take away the landed property (up to 30 hectares) from the land-owners, but even undertook to protect this landed property by laws. It is therefore that the continued denial of this fact by the Lithuanian rulers cannot be but called a brazen lie. Most probably this is what the Lithuanian rulers were also convinced of, for as soon as they found out that the original text of the declaration of July 22nd, 1940 had turned up, they (as early as January 16th, 1997) i.e. at once after that, suspended the validity of the law “Concerning the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of the citizens to their still existing land” of June 18th, 1991 as well of its later alterations and additions by virtue of the new law Nr. VIII-76. And they did not merely suspend its validity, but also all legal consequences resulting from its enforcement.

(Quote): “For the time of the period in force of this law:

1) is suspended the restoration of ownership rights to still existing real estate, as well as the resolution of the problem of privatization of landed property, the ownership rights of which were be restored to owners according to Lithuanian laws, and of apartments in houses which were to be returned to their owners, in all boards, institutions and organizations of the Lithuanian Republic;

2) are deferred all hearings of civil cases, in connection with the law” “Concerning the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of the citizens to their still existing land” in all courts of the Lithuanian Republic, according to actions, claims, applications, appeals, cassation appeals and proposed cassations;

3) is deferred the enforcement of final court judgments, and suspended the enforcement of decisions of boards, institutions and organizations, in connection with the law “Concerning the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of the citizens to their still existing land” (unquote).

You will certainly agree with me that nobody will behave this way without very serious reasons. For me personally it is of great interest that in this law its makers are obviously expressing their doubts regarding not only the legitimacy of decisions by office-bearers, but also concerning final court judgments: “is deferred the enforcement of final court judgments, and suspended the enforcement of decisions of boards, institutions and organizations, in connection with the law “Concerning the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of the citizens to their still existing land”. I am sure, dear reader, this will be of interest for you, too. It is even stranger that the special law Nr. VIII-359 of July 1st, 1997, which took the place of the suspended law of June 18th, 1991, again legitimized the legal continuance of all questioned court judgments. If everything had been lawful (vividly proven by the legal continuance, legitimized in the new law), for whom and for what reason was this drastic suspension of the law of June 18th, 1991 necessary? At that time there were no other serious reasons for these drastic measures by the rulers of Lithuania, as the very passage, unearthed by us in the original document of the “Declaration” of July 22nd, 1940, proving that by no means all the land had been nationalized as far back as 1940. (i.e. the passage proving that the adoption of the law “Concerning the regulations and conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights of the citizens to their still existing land” of June 18th, 1990 was based on the untruthful information about a general nationalization of all land). However, the Lithuanian public of that time silently “swallowed” the deception by the Lithuanian “rulers” mentioned above in this article, which is why the people are now suffering from its very consequences. The “rulers” are drawing the only possible conclusion from the public opinion remaining silent: if the general public remained silent in the face of such an evident lie, then this general public will go on staying silent ” even if it is served with still more lies. That is why the “rulers” are coming up with even more brazen lies.

In order that you, dear readers, might not be tempted to think that I am only creating or manipulating facts, I will be supporting my further statement by information taken from official documents. The entire post-soviet land-robbery is being justified by the alleged general nationalization in the soviet period. This assertion constitutes the so-called legal boundary, which, in practice, did not allow for the realization of the freedom and independence dreamt of by the people. Instead, the Leninist arbitrariness and despotism of the “rulers” took the place of this freedom: the whole landed property is concentrated in the hands of these “rulers” and is being split up an redistributed by them. And even though such a general nationalization of landed property had really been legitimately effected ” it would have become null and void long ago, for when restoring the Lithuanian independence on March 11th, the validity of all soviet legal acts being inconsistent with the Lithuanian statehood, was legally abolished on Lithuanian territory. Throughout the whole post-soviet period I have been watching with astonishment, with what kind of considerable energy the Lithuanian “rulers” (allegedly patriots) are specifying and enlarging this void “law” of soviet design with total absurdities, enforcing it, one after the other, even more assiduously.

As I promised further above, I will now introduce you into documents, the content of which proves that the post-soviet Lithuanian “ruler” have been obviously abusing the law ever since the beginning of 1997. On April 23rd, 1997 I as received by the then chairman of the Lithuanian parliament, Vytautas Landsbergis and his deputy, J. Bielskis. As the chairman of the Lithuanian Seimas (Parliament) was the direct representative of my constituency for the Lithuanian parliament, I personally handed over to him a petition of his electors, who had authorized me, that he should present and support in the Lithuanian parliament our project for a future law, having been prepared by us: “Concerning the restitution of the landed property, unlawfully taken away from the Lithuanian land-owners by the occupational regime of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialistic Republic from 1940 to 1990”. As can be seen by the name of this project, we were still very naive at that time, believing in the well-meaningness of the “representatives elected by the people”. The chairman of the Lithuanian parliament received this petition (together with the project having been prepared by us) personally and confirmed it by his signature on a copy of this petition remaining in my hands (see: attached document Nr. 1). In order to make things easier for the chairman of the Lithuanian parliament, Vytautas Landsbergis, I had the second copy of the above document, which was meant for the other members of the Lithuanian parliament registered with the head-clerk of the parliament’s registry on February 18th, 1997 under Nr. 450-1398/02 (see: attached document Nr. 2). By letter of March 18th, 1997 Nr. 450-1398/04 (see: attached document Nr. 3) the head clerk of the registry of the Lithuanian parliament, P. Marudin, informed me: “…we beg to inform you that the parliament’s registrar, J. Razma, has taken note of your petition of February 18th, 1997 Nr. 450 – 1398 concerning the protection of Human rights and of petition Nr.450-1398/02 concerning the law project dealing with the unlawfully dispossessed landed property”. On his instruction these petitions were correspondingly passed on to the parliamentary committee on Human and civil rights and minorities as well as to the law committee. Please accept our apologies for informing you about this belatedly. At the same time we inform you that the law project “Concerning the restitution of the landed property, unlawfully taken away from the Lithuanian land-owners by the occupational regime of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialistic Republic from 1940 to 1990″ received from you on March 10th, 1997, was passed on to the chairman of a newly drawn-up working group of the parliament, meant for completing the law project concerning the restitution of land-owners ownership rights to their landed property, namely to the first vice-chairman of the parliament, A. Kubilius”.

It has become quite evident from the quotations of documents that, even prior to the adoption of the new special law Nr. VIII-359 of July 1st, 1997 regulating the “restoration of ownership rights” the then ruling majority of the Lithuanian Seimas-parliament had correctly been informed about the fact that no “de jure” restitution of ownership rights was required, as they had never stopped to exist “de jure”

(quote from the beginning of the project of the law “Concerning the restitution of the landed property, unlawfully taken away from the Lithuanian land-owners by the occupational regime of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialistic Republic from 1940 to 1990”):

“I. General regulations

Article 1. Legal basis of the law.

1.1. The legal grounds for the continued existence of the ownership rights in the Lithuanian Constitution and in the Lithuanian constitutional laws

On March 11th, 1990 the Supreme Council of Lithuania, expressing the will of the people, restored the validity of the sovereign powers of the Lithuanian Republic, which had been abolished by foreign armed forces in 1940, and declared Lithuania to be an independent state. The Supreme Council of Lithuania, in its legal act of March 11th, 1990 concerning the restoration of the independent Lithuanian state, declared the following:

“The declaration of independence made on February 16th, 1918 by the Lithuanian Council as well as the resolution of May 15th, 1920 by the Lithuanian Parliament in formation concerning the restored Lithuanian democratic state had never lost their legal validity and are the constitutional foundations of the Lithuanian state.

The territory of the Lithuanian state is unified and indivisible. No constitution of a foreign state is valid on its territory.

Lithuania has, time and again, stressed that she is complying with the universally acknowledged international legal principles, that she acknowledges the inviolability of borders, as it was formulated in 1975 in the final act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in Helsinki.

The Supreme Council of Lithuania, holding sovereign powers, is starting to realize through this act the sovereignty of the entire state.”

By means of the law “Concerning the restoration of the validity of the Lithuanian Constitution of May 12th, 1938” the Supreme Council, on March 11th, 1990, declared null and void the Constitution of the Soviet Republic of Lithuania of April 20th, 1978, the Constitution of the USSR of October 7th, 1977, and also the laws of the USSR and the soviet federal republics on the territory of the Lithuanian Republic. By means of the selfsame law the Supreme Council restored the validity of the Lithuanian Constitution of May 12th, 1938 on the entire Lithuanian territory. As the norms of section VIII “Domestic Economy” of the Lithuanian Constitution of May 12th, 1938 were governing ownership relations, the restoration of the validity of the Lithuanian Constitution of May 12th, 1938 inevitably also meant the restitution of the constitutional institution of private ownership. Ever since this moment the private ownership of the citizens was protected by the regulations of the restored Lithuanian Constitution of May 12th, 1938. Ever since this moment the then usufructs of the landed property had the land of lawful land-owners no longer at their disposal, which became unlawful, after the legal foundations had been abolished. On March 11th, 1990 the Supreme Council of Lithuania, acting within the framework of the Lithuanian Constitution of May 12th, 1938, adopted the provisional Basic Law of the Republic of Lithuania. The first part of Article 44 of this Basic Law stipulated: “The basis of the Lithuanian economic system is the property of the Republic of Lithuania, being composed of the private ownership of her citizens …”. This regulation is especially important, because the constitutional institution of private ownership was firmly established in it and, additionally, its continued existence being derived from the constitutions of the Lithuanian state, acknowledged.

As the basis of these legal regulations, the ownership documents for landed property having been issued to land-owners prior to the Soviet occupation of the independent Lithuanian state in 1940, are the legal grounds for restoring a concrete landed property to a land-owner and the identification of this landed property at the very place of its former location. The supreme legal power of the Basic Law of March 11th, 1990, has been established in its very name “Basic”. That is why the restored continued existence of the ownership rights of Lithuanian land-owners to a concrete landed property cannot be restricted by any regulation of any law adopted later on. The option of compulsorily splitting up landed property was restricted by Article 14 of the second section of the Basic Law of March 11th, 1990, stipulating: “All Lithuanian citizens are equal before the law, independent of race, gender, origin, social or financial status, social views, religion or ethnic origin. The equality of all Lithuanian citizens is safeguarded in all economic, political, social and cultural spheres”.

After approving the currently valid Lithuanian Constitution by means of a general referendum of all Lithuanian citizens as far back as October 25th, 1992, the constitutional regulations protecting the ownership rights of the Lithuanian land-owners as well as equality before the law, were established in the legal norms of Article 23, 29, 43 and 47 of this Constitution. Article 47 of the Constitution stipulates: “Land, internal waters, forests, and parks may only belong to the citizens and the State of the Republic of Lithuania by the right of ownership”. The first part of Article 46 stipulates: “Lithuania’s economy shall be based on the right to private ownership, freedom of individual economic activity, and initiative”, and Article 23 stipulates “Property shall be inviolable”. The second part of Article 5 of this Constitutions stipulates: “The scope of powers shall be defined by the Constitution”, its third part: “Institutions of power shall serve the people”. Article 6 of the Constitution stresses: “The Constitution shall be an integral and directly applicable statute” and “Every person may defend his or her rights on the basis of the Constitution”. Article 7 of the Constitution, definitely, is obstructing the way for possible misuse of powers: “Any law or other statute which contradicts the Constitution shall be invalid”. This legal priority of the Constitution constitutes one of the fundamental ways to protect the democratic order of the state from the evil intentions and harmful actions of those in power. The second part of Article 29 of the Constitution prohibits to grant someone special privileges.

The second paragraph of the law of November 6th, 1992 “Concerning the order of the coming into force of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” stipulates “Laws, other legal acts or parts of them, which had been valid in Lithuania up to the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, continue to be valid only until they have become ineffective or have been coordinated with the regulations of the Constitution” – that is why it cannot be asserted that even after the Constitution had come into force, former laws, which were inconsistent with the Constitution, were still effective. Parts two and three of Article 5 of the Constitution as well as the regulations of Article 6 and the regulation of the first part of Article 7 make the regulations of anti-constitutional laws null and void, and, what is more, together with the regulations of Article 3 release the citizens of Lithuania of compliance with the stipulations of anti-constitutional laws or their parts, as the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania has superior legal force.

In 1995 the publishing institute of the Seimas-Parliament of the Republic of published a legal analysis concerning the correspondence of Lithuanian laws with the stipulations of the European Convention on Human Rights, called “Human Rights and Freedoms”. This analysis had been prepared by a special working group consisting of members of the Lithuanian parliament and famous jurists, which had been drawn up especially for this purpose on February 11th, 1994 by virtue of presidential decree Nr. 233. This group of law specialists did also prepare a systematical analysis of Articles 67 and 69 of the Constitution, on the basis of which the laws of the Republic of Lithuania – according to their legal force were listed in this order:

1.The Lithuanian Constitution (having supreme legal force).

2.The Lithuanian constitutional laws (Their legal force yielding only to the Lithuanian Constitution).

3.The Lithuanian laws (Their legal force yielding only to the Lithuanian Constitution and the constitutional laws).

1.2. The documents of the period of the Soviet occupation 1940-1990, regulating the legal status of landed property.

In 1940 the Union of the Soviet Socialistic Republics (Soviet Union) occupied the independent Lithuanian state and, by use of force, took away the landed property of a part of the Lithuanian citizens. This arbitrary act was enforced by the occupational regime, however, as is proven by the still existing documents from that period, the term “nationalization” was never used to describe this process. The structures of the occupational regime began using the term “nationalization” later on, when the forcible and unlawful collectivization (even according to the earlier laws of Soviet Lithuania) – called for a name to confer an impression of lawfulness to the unlawful actions of the regime. It was not until that later date that the term “general nationalization of landed property” was used in order to describe the incidents of the year 1940.

However, the term “nationalization” was not used in this context, as by this term (used only in connection with a sovereign state) one calls the lawfully enforced transfer of the landed property of the land-owners into public ownership. In 1940 m. not even one of the mentioned preconditions were met in soviet-occupied Lithuania: the country (“de facto”) was no longer a sovereign and independent state, the dispossession of the Lithuanian land-owners was being enforced by the regime having been imposed by the occupying forces, after it had unlawfully abolished the validity of the Lithuanian laws established in the Lithuanian Constitution of May 12th. Under such conditions, taking away from the land-owners their landed property, is called “expropriation”, a term frequent in the practice of international law. A correct legal definition of this action calls for a legal evaluation of this action. Most probably for this reason the Lithuanian Constitutional Court, while evaluating the justification of the nationalization enforced during the years of the Soviet occupation, held in its decision of May 27th, 1994 in case Nr. 12/93:

” … On the basis of such arbitrary acts of the occupational regime a lawful ownership of the state could not be formed and was not formed, for “ex iniuria ius non oritur”.

However, disregarding this decision, the authors of the “land reform” being enforced in Lithuania keep on asserting that, as a consequence of the declaration of July 22nd, 1940 by the People’s Seimas concerning the takeover of all private landed property into state ownership, all landed property belonging to lawful land-owners, had, by virtue of this declaration, become the property of the state. In order to find out, whether this assertion is true or not, we have to get acquainted with that part of the text of the mentioned declaration, in which the future legal status of the landed property has been laid down:

“Expressing the will of the working people and being guided by the vital interests of the working farmers, the People’s Seimas declares the entire Lithuanian land including the space under it, all forests and waters the property of the people, i.e. the property of the state. From this day the land will belong to those, who cultivate it.

The People’s Seimas decides to fix a norm of 30 hectares for each single farmstead of all the farmsteads in Lithuania, and to form a state land fund out of the surplus land of the farmsteads exceeding this norm, in order to help the landless peasants as well as the smallholders to acquire land.

The entire land, which from this day is in the possession of the working people or the farmers, as well as the land, which the state gave to the landless peasants and the smallholding farmers, is confirmed to be for their eternal use. All attempts to infringe upon the personal property of the farmers, or to impose upon the working farmers a kolkhoz system against their will, shall be severely punished for harming the interests of the people and the state”.

Article 9 of the Constitution of the Lithuanian Soviet Republic of 1940 stipulated: “The land, occupied by the farmsteads of farmers, is being confirmed to be for their use within the scope of the law, free of charge and for an unrestricted time”.

The regulation of Article 10 of this Constitution stipulated:

“The law protects the personal ownership rights of the citizens to the earnings of their work as well as to their savings, to a family home and a plot of land for subsistence, to farm equipments and household fittings, to things for personal use and convenience, and it also protects the personal ownership right of the citizens”.

On December 5th, 1940 the then Soviet people’s commissary for justice, Povilas Pakarklis, explained the more important regulations of the Constitution of the Lithuanian Soviet Republic on page 9 of Nr. 151 of the daily newspaper “Tiesa” (“The Truth”):

Article 10 of the Constitution of the Lithuanian Soviet Republic stipulates that the personal property of the citizens is being protected by the law. This ruins the assertions of the enemies of socialism that there is no property within the framework of the Soviet order.

Within the framework of the Soviet order no one has the right to rob workers, farmers or employees of the money they have earned. Also does no one have the right to throw a farmer out of his farmstead and to occupy it for himself. Within the framework of the Soviet order personal property is not inconsistent with socialistic property, it is fully a product of it: in the end it is the result of the participation of workers and farmers in socialistic production, it is the product of their work” (unquote).

“The state commission for agriculture” having been drawn up by the occupational regime on August 7th, 1940, prepared this commentary concerning the future legal status of landed property

(quote):

“1. In accordance with § 2, point b, all landed property including manor house, outbuildings and the entire livestock and as well as equipment is taken away from the lords of the manors by virtue of the decree of August 5th, 1940 by the council of ministers. The lords of manors are allowed to retain their personal belongings and their household equipment. They can keep their furniture, insofar as it is required for the use of the family. All things of artistic, cultural, scientific and museum value will be at the state’s disposal. Whenever the lord of a manor is a specialist in whatsoever area, he is allowed to retain things and books being connected with his special province.

By the term “lords of manors” is understood: a) the owner of latifundia, who are descendants of the former class of noblemen, or those land-owners, to whom, when carrying through the former land reform, there was left the so-called “norm for owners of manors”, b) the former higher officials, major industrialists, big traders and other members of the city bourgeoisie, also the big land-owners, who manage their estates with the assistance of stewards or specially authorized representatives.

The question of the takeover of such agricultural land into the state land fund will finally be decided by the state agricultural commission in Kaunas. The agricultural commissions of the counties are under an obligation to submit the characteristic features and corresponding descriptions without delay.

2. The other big land-owners, not belonging to the above mentioned, shall be treated in accordance with § 2 point e of the decree by the council of ministers, and they can retain a land norm of 30 hectares, provided they themselves manage the manor, constantly live on it and make their living only from this land.

3. it should be stressed that the workers, teachers and employees of both state and private institutions (with the exception of those mentioned under point 1), who either themselves live in a village and cultivate their land or whose family lives there and cultivates the land, shall also retain a norm of up to 30 hectares.

Unemployed persons or part-time workers, as well as senior citizens, minors under the care of a guardian and handicapped persons, in accordance with a corresponding decision of the agricultural commission of the district may also retain a land norm of up to 30 hectares.

Workers, teachers, petty employees of both state and private institutions as well as persons, who did great service to the people or to science and art, and who either inherited this land or acquired it from the savings of their personal work, who, however, did not live in the country prior to June 17th of this year and who did not personally cultivate their land, may ” in accordance with a corresponding decision of the district commission for agricultural land- retain up to 10 hectares or else in each case their farmsteads together with outbuildings, together with the right to acquire land in the future, provided they return to the country.

4. Suggestions concerning the persons, who rendered outstanding services to the people, science and art, are submitted by the agricultural commissions of the districts and counties. The final decisions, however, are passed by the state agricultural commission.

The council of ministers has approved of this commentary drawn up by the state agricultural commission” (unquote).

As early as 1940 the occupational regime founded a fund of state land in Lithuania (the very fact of creating this fund proves the parallel existence of the ownership rights to private landed property). Only landed property having been taken over into this land fund, was regarded to have been nationalized. The takeover of landed property into the state land fund was confirmed by virtue of a concrete document. This is quite evident from the regulations contained in the decision of the council of ministers of the then Lithuanian Soviet Socialistic Republic (LSSR), passed on August 5th, 1940 “Concerning the establishment of a state land fund” (quote):

“On August 5th, 1940, the council of ministers, striving to realize the decision of July 22nd, 1940 by the People’s Seimas concerning both the declaration of the land the property of the people, i.e. of the state, and the supply of the landless farmers and the smallholders with land, decided:

1. To establish a state land fund for supplying the landless farmers and the smallholders with land, and also for public purposes.

2. To take over into this fund the following landed property:

a) the entire state land as well as the land of the local municipalities, which is not immediately required for the state or the municipalities;

b) all the land of manors together with farmhouses, outbuildings, livestock and equipment;

c) the entire land of churches, parishes, monasteries and other religious organizations;

d) the land of such citizens, who live in towns, who themselves do not cultivate the land and have other sources of income, with the exception of farmsteads and plot of land not exceeding 10 hectares, being the possession of workers, petty employees, teachers as well as of other persons, who have rendered outstanding services to the Lithuanian people, to science and art;

e) that part of the land belonging to agricultural farmsteads, which exceeds the norm of 30 hectares.

3. The take-over of state land, municipal land as well as the land of owners of manors into the state land fund shall be carried through in accordance with a decision of the state commission for agricultural land, based on suggestions submitted by the county commissions. The state commission for agricultural land shall appoint special commissaries for the manors, following corresponding suggestions made by both the county commissions for agricultural land and the public organizations of the counties.

The other land shall be surrendered into the land fund by the commissions of the district and the county, in accordance with the order laid down on July 26th, 1940 by the council of ministers.

4. Landed property exceeding 30 hectares shall be taken over into the land fund also in these cases:

a) if farmsteads were “de jure” split up, but in the end there was not formed a new independent farmstead as the result of this splitting-up and the farmstead was “de facto” still run by the same family or a number of persons,

b) if farmsteads were either signed over to or acquired by several members of the same family (by husband, wife or other relatives) or fictitious persons, and the land, in reality, belonged to only one owner or to only one family.

The detached area must not be of inferior quality than the one left to the former owner” (unquote).

After having become acquainted with the documents from the Soviet occupation period, which determine the legal status of the land, it has become obvious that there is not a single document in this period, which, legally indisputably, would confirm to the authors and supporters of the post-soviet compulsory splitting-up of landed property, that they are acting lawfully.

On the contrary, it became evident from the documents of that period that there are new facts giving evidence being of advantage for the rightful land-owners:

1. The compulsory dispossession of the land-owners of Soviet-occupied Lithuania, carried through by the Soviet Lithuanian regime on the basis of the “Declaration of the People’ s Seimas concerning the take-over of the land into the ownership of the state” of July 22nd, 1940, can by no means be called “nationalization” ” for the reasons given in this document, and that is why it cannot be considered to be a lawful action of taking away the landed property, by virtue of which the legal chain of ownership would have been abolished. As the right of ownership was never abolished “de jure”, no Lithuanian law is required to newly restore the continuance of ownership rights for the purpose of giving back the landed property.

2. In 1940 the Soviets did not enforce a general process of taking away the landed property from the Lithuanian land-owners. Right at the beginning of the period of occupation the Constitution of Soviet-occupied Lithuania mentioned the right of Lithuanian land-owners to personally possess landed-property of up to 30 hectares as land-owners, acquired by the result of their work (the earnings of their work).

3. The Soviet-Lithuanian laws of 1940 prohibited to compulsorily collectivize or by way of other means take away this landed property, which was considered to be the personal property of the land-owners. The laws of that period called for criminal prosecution for taking away from a land-owner the land being in his personal possession.

4. Even the receipts for land taxes paid by the land-owners confirm that there was no forcible general splitting-up of the land carried through by the Soviet-Lithuanian regime in 1940 (quotations from the end of the law project “Concerning the restitution of the landed property, unlawfully taken away from the Lithuanian land-owners by the occupational regime of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialistic Republic from 1940 to 1990”).

One should definitely not overlook the fact that even if the ownership rights to landed property had lawfully been abolished in the period of the Soviet occupation, ” the norms of international law nevertheless recommend to carry through a restitution. And that is why “as early as on March 11th, 1990- the citizens of the Lithuanian Republic were faced with the historical option to follow the path of freedom and progress. The Supreme Council of Lithuania simply should have let itself be guided by the regulations of international law, often tried and confirmed in everyday life throughout the world. Article 26 of Part three of the “Declaration on Social Progress and Development”, called “Means and methods”, proclaimed by the United Nation’s General Assembly resolution 2542 (XXIV) of December 11th, 1969, recommended the right way for Soviet-occupied Lithuania: “Compensation for damages, be they social or economic in nature- including restitution and reparations-caused as a result of aggression and of illegal occupation of territory by the aggressor”. Unfortunately, the post-soviet Lithuanian law-givers did not follow this avenue …

To some of my readers it might seem that I am undermining the authority of the Lithuanian state. This, however, is not the case. There are merely a few per cent of persons wishing to grow rich quickly and without having to work for it, and this they are striving to achieve at the expense of the vast majority of honest citizens. Only then could the authority of the state be undermined and destroyed, if we ourselves were unable to show “the truth about the so-called land reform in post-soviet Lithuania”. In that case our neighbours would rightfully consider us to be travellers on a “Ship of Fools”.

Part Three:

The last legal argument of the “rulers”

In the preceding two parts of this article we have already found out that the promises to create the public weal, made by a group of persons, being the rulers of our state, and calling themselves “politicians”, “experts”, “The elite”, “The upper class” and by similar names, are being twisted to achieve just the opposite.

The only would-be legal argument left for the authors and supporters of the post-soviet “land reform” and the “restoration of ownership rights” is the regulation of sentence three of Article 46 of the Lithuanian Constitution: “The State shall regulate economic activity so that it serves the general welfare of the people”. In order to check, whether the authors and enforcers of the “land reform” were correctly applying sentence 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution, to justify the lawfulness of the “land reform”, one cannot but explain the term “state” (what is a state), the needs of a state, and the term “the general welfare of the people”.

Further above I have already explained in detail that the very foundations of international law as well as of the legal system of democratic states rest on the law theory of the English philosopher and jurist John Locke (1632-1704). Now I will analyze this part of John Locke’s law theory in greater detail in order to explain, what a state is:

J. Locke explains that a state is not created in a void space, without people living on its territory, without a language being spoken by these people, without material values having been created by the work of these people, without moral and legal regulations acknowledged by them. John Locke further stresses that the state is created by a general agreement of the citizens, meant for organizing a definite order and for eliminating the undefined nature of natural rights (whenever the one, who has suffered, enforces justice himself). The state further rests on the exchange of natural rights by unambiguous laws, applicable to all in the same way, and on the impartiality of the officials of the state. After creating a state, the supreme power in this state belongs to the law, to which the executive power is subordinate, and the people are the law-givers and only later on the enforcers of these laws. J. Locke compares the state to a tutelage, mainly established in order to protect the interests of the ward, not, however, to realize the interests of the guardians (i.e. not meant for realizing the interests of the representatives of the regime ” Z.J.). That is why the representatives of the people, elected by the people for protecting them, first have obligations and only then rights. The people, having elected them, have the right to recall them, if they (in the people’s opinion) were not executing their duties accordingly, and to substitute them by new authorized representatives, who are more appropriate. J. Locke showed that the laws safeguarding the ownership rights of the citizens would not have to be newly invented, because the basic goal of the creation of a state is the protection of the lives, the health and the fundamental rights and freedoms of its citizens. J. Locke justifies the right of ownership this way: “as each person belongs to himself, the fruits of his works are also his property” (or the movable or non-movable goods acquired for the financial expression of the fruits of work)” Z.J.) J. Locke states that: “Work creates property and it fixes the value of this property”. He further stresses: “As the protection of property is the first and fundamental goal, for which the state is created, the officials of the state have no right to take away from anyone the property, which belongs to this person, against this person’s will”. (That is why I -further above- have already drawn the attention of my readers to the fact that the declaration of the “People’s Seimas” of July 22nd, 1940 concerning the takeover of private land into state ownership is almost consistent with the theory of international law ” which can by no means be said about the post-soviet laws on “land reform” and the alleged “restoration of ownership rights”).

I would recommend to those of my readers, who are of the opinion that the theory of international law is obsolete for Lithuania (although it is still being applied in civilized countries) ” to get acquainted with the opinion expressed regarding this question more than 50 years ago by the famous Austrian economist and noble-prize winner, Friedrich August von Hayek in his book “The road to Serfdom”: In this book F.A.Hayek shows that the laws of a state based on law are formal and shapeless, i.e. excessively general ” without consideration of any concrete interests of citizens or their groups.

He compares laws with traffic regulations: all road-users are allowed to drive, where they want ” however, only within the framework of traffic regulations.

In a state, the officials of which are enforcing a regulation of domestic economy, there is no such equality of the citizens before the law. Comparing this with traffic regulations, the laws and post-law acts of such a state is allocating different directions in road traffic (for the same type of means of transport) to different groups of citizens with equal rights. This means that the decision having been passed by economic planners and regulators, which consider themselves to be the state, is allocating special privileges to certain groups of citizens with regard to the rest of the citizens, with this very decision having been passed not by the people, but by a comparatively small group of those in power. As a matter of fact it constitutes only the opinion of these few citizens, who have succeeded in establishing their personal opinion as part of laws. This extraordinary privilege, which the rulers of the regime have arbitrarily allocated to themselves, is called coercion by F.A.Hayek, and he stresses that the use of force inevitably changes the status of the rulers, as such a type of rule has nothing to do with democracy, neither the name nor its essence. This will ” according to Hayek ” inevitably result in a totalitarian regime.

The needs of the state are clearly shown in the Constitution of the Lithuanian state, adopted on October 25th, 1992 by a general referendum of the Lithuanian citizens as the free expression of their will. The binding legal norms of this Constitution are completely consistent with the norms of international law described earlier in this article. The stipulations of Article two of the Lithuanian Constitution, “The State of Lithuania shall be created by the People” and “Sovereignty shall be vested in the People” are fully consistent with the J. Locke’s foundations of law – that only decisions passed by the people, who have created the state, have supreme legal power. If the officials of post-soviet Lithuania do not safeguard the citizens’ rights, being established in the law, – the reason why is not the absence of binding legal norms (to be obeyed by all citizens), but the obvious disrespect of the rulers for the norms of international law, valid in Lithuania, and the will of the people, having been established in the Lithuanian Constitution. That is why there is only one conclusion left, namely, that the conviction prevalent among the post-soviet officials of Lithuania: that citizens having been elected to be officials, are allowed to equate themselves with the state, and are on the same level as God, as far as their unpunishableness and irresponsibility for their unlawful actions is concerned, is a complete legal absurdity. Acquiring such special privileges is only possible by seriously violating the equality of all citizens before the law, stipulated by general binding legal norms, valid in Lithuania.

When explaining, what is meant by the term “The common welfare of the people”, one has to acquaint oneself with the inborn human rights, the status of which is defined by the stipulation of Article 18 of the Lithuanian Constitution: “The rights and freedoms of individuals shall be inborn”, and the first sentence of Article 20 stipulates “Personal freedom shall be inviolable”, with the second sentence of Article 21 of the Lithuanian Constitution determining: “Human dignity shall be protected by law”. This is consistent with the fundamental regulations of international law (already outlined in this article), which stipulate that the general welfare of the people is safeguarded by protecting the inborn human right and equality of each citizen of that people.

The term “The general welfare of the people” is not a concrete one, that is why one might join all possible inconsistencies under this term and present it to the Lithuanian public, calling it “The general welfare of the people “. This, however, is not only inconsistent with logics, but also with common sense. And therefore such an ambiguous term “from a legal standpoint- is nonsensical, meaning nothing at all. And, what is more, the term “The common welfare of the people” has no connection whatsoever with the legal term “property”, which is why this term can absolutely not mean the “giving” or “taking” of a concrete landed property. Legal practice in all countries of the world holds that a specific restriction or regulation has superior legal power than common phrases. And that is why neither Lithuanian laws can be adopted nor decisions of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court be passed, which are supported by such common phrases, meaning nothing at all, the legal essence of which being inconsistent with the specific legal restrictions or regulations of the valid Lithuanian Constitution, and which, therefore, being adopted or passed, are null and void and must not be enforced (see also the following binding legal norms of the valid Lithuanian Constitution – Article 3: “No one may limit or restrict the sovereignty of the People or make claims to the sovereign powers of the People”; Article 4: “The People shall exercise the supreme sovereign power vested in them either directly or through their democratically elected representatives”; Article 5: “The scope of powers shall be defined by the Constitution” and “Institutions of power shall serve the people”; Article 6: “The Constitution shall be an integral and directly applicable statute” and “Every person may defend his or her rights on the basis of the Constitution” and Article 7: “Any law or other statute which contradicts the Constitution shall be invalid”). It is, therefore, obvious that the legal stipulation of sentence 3 of Article 46 of the Lithuanian Constitution: “The State shall regulate economic activity so that it serves the general welfare of the people” creates an inner inconsistency of the legal sense, which “in abuse of law- is being exploited by a group of persons, striving to realize their egoistic goals.

After having analyzed the binding legal norms valid in Lithuania, one can, with justification, draw the following conclusion:

The compulsory dispossessing and the further splitting-up of the landed property of land-owners, being enforced by the officials of the Lithuanian regime and its administrative institutions is -from a legal standpoint- completely unjustified and obviously inconsistent with the foundations of international law as well as the legal stipulations of the Lithuanian Constitution, and there are all the signs of a criminal action being perpetrated, which will never result in anything positive for the people.

I have to painfully disappoint all those, who are thinking: “Write what you want, we will nevertheless continue with what we have started”. The rule “illegal acts cannot produce legal results or rights” stipulated in the decision of May 27th, 1994 by the Lithuanian Constitutional Court in case nr. 12/93 (“Ex iniuria ius non oritur”) is also applicable for the illegal actions of the post-soviet officials. And that is why you, the dealers with other people’s landed property, can wind up your business. I would remind those, who are still doubtful, that, for instance, a stolen car has to be returned by the buyer even though he did not know that it had been stolen. This means that the landed property, which you currently have bought for a symbolical price, will undoubtedly be taken away from you in the future. And even the fact that your buildings have meanwhile been erected on that land, does not mean anything, for the land (which, legitimately, never became your property) is the basic property. Building houses on this landed property, will only aggravate your situation ” preventing the lawful owners from using the landed property that belongs to them, at their own discretion, which is why the lawful owners will continually sustain real material losses. As soon as there will be created a state really based on law in Lithuania, the owners of the buildings will be under an obligation to compensate the lawful owners of the land for the fact that they have all the while prevented the lawful owners from using his landed property. This procedure will convince those who strive to get rich easily, that behaving immorally (by inflicting real losses on other citizens) will not be economically advantageous for themselves.

REFERENCES TO ARTICLES

The first part of the article: “Who is who in the Post-Soviet Lithuania?” by Zenonas Jurgelevičius was published on September 14th, 2005 in the newspaper “Lietuvos Aidas” Nr.213 (9702) on page 2; on September 15th, 2005 in Nr.214 (9703) on page 2; on September 16th, 2005 in Nr.215 (9704) on page 2; and on September 17th, 2005 in Nr.216 (9705) on page 2.

The second part of the article: “Who is who in the Post-Soviet Lithuania?” was published on September 26th, 2005 in the newspaper “Lietuvos Aidas” Nr.223 (9712) on pages one and two; on September 27th, 2005 Nr.224 (9713) pages one and two; and on September 27th, 2005 Nr.225 (9714) on pages one and two.

The third part of the article: “Who is who in the Post-Soviet Lithuania?” was published on October 6th, 2005 in Nr.232 (9721) on pages one and two.

2009 06 01

Comments

 

 

 
  1. Hello there,

    My name is George, and I was wondering if you would like to have your website komentaras.lt promoted as a resource on my blog georgemartjr.com ?

    We are updating our broken link resources to include up to date resources for our readers. Our resource links are manually approved as a do follow link.
    If you are interested in having your site included as a resource on our blog, please let me know.

    Thanks for your consideration,
    George

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. il dolore è andato con lui still.So stupido io, con quella vista insolita, In forma umana una fromabove angelo, Nutrire i miei occhi, th impressione vi ha fatto luce; Che da quando ho runand riposo amore come piacerà: La differenza è, i satiri labbra, il mio cuore, Hefor un po ‘, ho sempre più, hanno smart.POEM: Sir Philip SIDNEYS SONNET INREPLYA DIFESA DI POESIE E POEMS61A satiro una volta ha funzionato via per paura, con il suono del corno che hehimself fatto colpo: Temendo e temuto, quindi da se stesso è fuggito, Deemingstrange male che non ha know.Such paure senza causa quando le menti Coward prendono, li rende flythat che volentieri avrebbero; Dato che questa povera bestia, che ha fatto il suo restforsake,

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. well , that’s other article filled with junk comments . why don’t you moderate this ? if someone wants to place a reply to the topic , he can’t ! get out of here spammers !

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. i am sorry about this off-topic post, but moderating the comments may very well be some time consuming method to handle the junk comments yet it really is really worth your time as this will ensure that your own followers are not getting a ton of spam replies on the site. simply have a look at this lot of odd replies concerning this topic here!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. I do like the manner in which you have framed this specific problem plus it does indeed give us some fodder for thought. Nonetheless, because of everything that I have experienced, I basically wish as the comments stack on that people today remain on issue and not start upon a soap box associated with the news of the day. Anyway, thank you for this superb piece and whilst I can not necessarily agree with the idea in totality, I value your point of view.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Aš perskaičiau tiek daug turinį tema Bloggers mėgėjams , tačiau šis gabalas raštu yra tikraipedantiška pranešimas , keep it up .

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Sveiki, tai yra suprantama gabalas raštu , kartu su šio YouTube “vaizdo įrašą , aš negaliu patikėti, kad niekas negali suprasti , tai lengvas dalis su vaizdo demo .

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Šis dienoraštis yra patogią komiškas “YouTube” vaizdo duomenis , man patiko tai daug .

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Jei esate dėmesio išmokti paieškos optimizavimo metodus , tada jūs turėtumėte perskaityti šią dalį , Esu tikras, kad gausite daug daugiau iš šio straipsnio dėl interneto optimizavimas .

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • I dierovsced your blog site on google and check a few of your early posts. Continue to keep up the very good operate. I just additional up your RSS feed to my MSN News Reader. Seeking forward to reading more from you later on!…

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Not to hijack this thread but I could use some information on a local business that’s located near me in Tampa but can’t seem to find enough feedback. I just need a basic AC maintanence.They are named – Castellano Air Conditioning, 2206 1/2 N Armenia Ave, Tampa, Fl 33607-3414,(813)877-6997

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. hello there and thank you for your information – I’ve certainly picked up anything fresh from right here. I did however expertise a few technical issues using this web site, since I experienced to reload the web site a lot of times previous to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your web host is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but slow loading instances times will often impact your location in google and could damage your high quality score if advertising and marketing with yahoo. Anyway I am adding this RSS to my email and can look out 4 much more of your respective fascinating content. Ensure that you update this again soon..

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. I’d like to be able to we appreciate you this initiatives you earn on paper this information. I hope a similar best product on your part in the foreseeable future in addition. In truth the inventive creating capabilities includes empowered me personally to get started my own BlogEngine website right now. Truly the blogging and site-building is dispersion their wings speedily. Ones article is a very good instance of the idea.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Today I received my ink. It cost me only $52. For 12 stciks. And the printer is working fine. The only problem is with picking paper from paper bin. Working only manual feed. The counter of printer is showing about 68000 pages printed. Is it good? The good thing is that printer is with network card and max RAM installed.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • I know someone who has aln2rimee&#8h17;s/demeztia, who was a sheet metal worker.He worked with aluminium amongst other metals.A lot of metal dust around.I was amazed to find that the effects of aluminium poisoning are pretty much identical to those of dementia.So it’s (one of) the real possibilties, the metal explanation.

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. hello & thanks for your info – I’ve certainly picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise a few technical issues using this web site, since I experienced to reload the site a lot of times previous to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your web hosting is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will sometimes affect your placement in google and can damage your quality score if ads and marketing with yahoo. Well I am adding this RSS to my e-mail and could look out 4 a lot more of your respective interesting content. Ensure that you update this again very soon..

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. hey & thank you for your information – I’ve definitely picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise some technical points using this web site, as I experienced to reload the web site many times previous to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your web host is OK? Not that I am complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will sometimes affect your placement in google and can damage your quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I’m adding this RSS to my email and can look out 4 much more of your respective intriguing content. Ensure that you update this again very soon..

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Grant , I believe there is a gas plant propsed for around the Holland Marsh ar8h#??&?e230;Taey could put one within reasonable distance from me if it meant no IWTs in Ontario. We live near the Bruce as it is.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Thanks so much for providing individuals with remarkably marvellous possiblity to read articles and blog posts from this blog. It is always so pleasant plus jam-packed with fun for me and my office co-workers to search your blog not less than thrice in a week to read through the fresh guidance you have got. And lastly, we’re actually amazed considering the attractive creative concepts you serve. Selected 2 areas in this post are indeed the very best I’ve had.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0



 
bilietai.lt/lit/renginiai/koncertai/geriausios-puko-dainos-2019-302454
Video reportage


bilietai.lt/lit/renginiai/koncertai/geriausios-puko-dainos-2019-302454

Nerpigiau./lt/produktas/505/nusikaltimas-valstybes-vardu

Actual. Comments
LRT premjeroje – autentiškas Vanago brolio pasakojimas 5
Toadying Lithuania and dignified Latvia: who gets more profit from USA? 6
Photo reports Important Joke


New Progressive Web App by Stakers comes on the scene 
Stakers.com – the iGaming operator presents its progressive web app for the smartphones....

Speech at the plenary session of the Parliamentary assembly of the OSCE (21)
Vilnius, July 3, 2009 C. Alissandrakis, Communist Party of Greece There have been...











Advertisment
Justice   Culture
Who is who in the Post-Soviet Lithuania? (29)
Land-reform or land-robbery? Behind the scenes of Post-Soviet Lithuania by...
Operation Y, or J. Jasaitis’ further adventures (3)
J. Jasaitis rehabilitated himself in the eyes of V.Grigaravicius ”...
Who Will Mushroom Out the Fungus? (5)
As soon as HC journalists left Rakauskiene Or ” A...
 
Liang Zhu-ge’s First Letter Written Before He Set Out on a Campaign (227 CE) (13)
Zhu-ge, Liang 1 (181-234 CE) Honorable King, The late king...
The Duke of Zheng Conquered Duan at Yan City (2)
(A historical event in 722 BCE) Qiu-Ming Zuo 1 (556?-451?...
Congratulations to Yuan Li on His Return to the Winding Valley 1 (8)
Han, Yu 2 (768 -824 CE) There is a winding...