News

Dismissal of the Chancellor of the Seimas on grounds of loss of confidence: doubts having arisen as to whether the dismissal procedure ensured due legal process and adequate conditions for preparing a response to the arguments of no confidence, the matter was referred to the Constitutional Court.

By its ruling of 3 October 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania suspended the examination of the administrative case concerning the dismissal of the former Chancellor of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and referred the matter to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania. The Court expressed doubts as to whether the resolution of the Seimas on the dismissal of the Chancellor of the Seimas on grounds of loss of confidence (the Resolution) complied with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the Statute of the Seimas.

The case established that the applicant had been appointed Chancellor of the Seimas for a five-year term by a resolution of the Seimas of 27 April 2021. By an order of 20 March 2024, and having regard to a statement submitted by 74 Members of the Seimas entitled “On the dismissal of the Chancellor of the Seimas on grounds of loss of confidence”, the Speaker of the Seimas proposed that the Seimas dismiss the applicant from the office of Chancellor on grounds of loss of confidence.

By the Resolution, the Seimas decided to dismiss the applicant from the office of Chancellor after expressing no confidence in him. The Resolution was adopted by secret ballot (of the 108 Members of the Seimas registered to vote, 95 voted in favour of the Resolution and 13 voted against).

Disagreeing with the Resolution, the applicant argued that his dismissal from the office of Chancellor of the Seimas was unlawful, as it had been adopted in breach of procedural legal rules and legal principles. The applicant had been informed only on 19 March 2024 that the issue of no confidence would be considered at the sitting of the Seimas on 21 March 2024. He had been dismissed in the absence of clear and coherent legal regulation governing the appointment and dismissal of the Chancellor of the Seimas, and without any clear or lawful basis.

Relying on the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 20 February 2013, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania noted that the procedure for dismissing an official appointed by the Seimas on grounds of loss of confidence must be appropriate, meaning that it must ensure due legal process and a genuine opportunity for the official to submit explanations to the Seimas and to respond, at the sitting of the Seimas, to the arguments on which the loss of confidence is based.

The panel of judges found that, in the statement expressing no confidence in the applicant, Members of the Seimas had relied on certain grounds for loss of confidence, whereas, at the sitting of the Seimas at which the issue was presented, additional grounds for loss of confidence were invoked which had not been set out in the original statement. The panel therefore questioned whether a situation in which new grounds for loss of confidence in a Seimas official were introduced during the parliamentary sitting, when deciding on the official’s dismissal, was compatible with the requirements of due legal process arising from Articles 75 and 30(1) of the Constitution, the principle of the rule of law, and the principle of responsible governance, in particular as regards the right to defence and good administration.

The case also established that the applicant had been informed on 19 March 2024 that the issue of loss of confidence would be considered on 21 March 2024. Consequently, the applicant effectively had only one working day to prepare and submit his explanations concerning the grounds for loss of confidence. His legal defence was therefore hindered not only by the fact that new grounds for loss of confidence were raised at the sitting of the Seimas, but also by the extremely short period granted to him — in essence, one working day — to prepare a defence against the grounds set out in the statement.

Accordingly, the panel of judges doubted whether the Resolution, in terms of the procedure by which it was adopted and in so far as the applicant was afforded only a short period during the dismissal procedure to prepare for the sitting of the Seimas and to submit his explanations, complied with the Constitution and the Statute of the Seimas.

Furthermore, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania raised the question of whether the requirement to establish a reasonable time-limit in procedures for dismissal on grounds of loss of confidence — allowing the official concerned to prepare adequately, submit explanations to the Seimas, and respond at the parliamentary sitting to the arguments underlying the loss of confidence — should be expressly laid down in the Statute of the Seimas.

The Court therefore also referred to the Constitutional Court the question of whether Article 217 of the Statute of the Seimas, in so far as it did not specify how far in advance an official must be informed of the sitting of the Seimas at which the issue of dismissal on grounds of loss of confidence would be considered, and how much time must be granted to the official concerned to prepare and submit explanations, was compatible with the Constitution.

As the Constitutional Court decides whether acts of the Seimas are in conformity with the Constitution, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, having identified the key issues giving rise to doubts as to the Resolution’s compliance with higher-ranking legal norms, referred the matter to that court.

Administrative case No eA-2472-520/2025