Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of the 30 August 1995 Resolution No.1164
of the Government of Lithuania "On the capitalisation of the
credits of some enterprises of the Ministry of Agriculture"
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as
with Article 13 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on
Budgeting, Article 9 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on
State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture, and Part
1, Article 43 of Company Law of the Republic of Lithuania
28 February 1996, Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Algirdas
Gailiūnas, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Vladas
Pavilonis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius, Stasys Stačiokas,
Teodora Staugaitienė, Stasys Šedbaras and Juozas Žilys,
the secretary of the hearing - Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
the petitioner - the Seimas members Andrius Kubilius and
Vidmantas Žiemelis, representatives of a group of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania members,
the party concerned - Jonas Panamariovas and Vytautas
Poliūnas, secretaries of the Ministry of Agriculture, and Irena
Paulauskienė, the Head of the Staff Division of the Ministry of
Agriculture, representatives of the Government of the Republic
of Lithuania,
pursuant to Part 1, Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Part 1, Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its
public hearing on 1 February 1996 conducted the investigation
of Case No.10/95 subsequent to the petition submitted to the
Court by a group of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
members requesting to investigate if the 30 August 1995
Resolution No.1164 of the Government of Lithuania "On the
capitalisation of the credits of some enterprises of the
Ministry of Agriculture" is in compliance with the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as with Article 13 of the
Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Budgeting, Article 9 of the
Law of the Republic of Lithuania on State Regulation of
Economic Relations in Agriculture, and Part 1, Article 43 of
Company Law of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
On 30 August 1995 the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania adopted its Resolution No.1164 "On the capitalisation
of the credits of some enterprises of the Ministry of
Agriculture" (Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios" No.73-1713,
1995; hereinafter in the ruling referred to as the disputed
Resolution of the Government), item 1 whereof permitted the
Ministry of Agriculture to utilise 16,914,100 Lt from the
Agriculture Support Fund of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania in order to repay the debt of the enterprises
indicated in the supplement of the Resolution for the
Lithuanian Bank of Agriculture by including the said means into
the state capital share.
The Government established in item 2 of this Resolution
that the Bank of Agriculture shall cover the debt of the
enterprises indicated in the supplement of the Resolution with
the means of the said fund pointed out in item 1 only in the
case that these enterprises pursuant to the procedure
established by Company Law increase their authorised capital.
In item 3 of the Resolution the Ministry of Agriculture is
commissioned to subscribe for the shares which belong to the
state in the enterprises indicated in the supplement of the
Resolution, and to represent the state in these enterprises.
The petitioner requests to investigate if the disputed
Resolution of the Government is in compliance with Article 29
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as
with Article 13 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on
Budgeting, Article 9 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on
State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture, and Part
1, Article 43 of Company Law of the Republic of Lithuania.
II
The Petitioner grounds his request with the following
arguments.
1. The Ministry of Agriculture is permitted by the
disputed Resolution of the Government to repay gratis and
irretrievably the 16,914,100 Lt expenses of the enterprises
enumerated in the supplement of the Resolution, and which
function on the basis of private enterprise; i.e. the Ministry
is permitted to cover the debts of the aforesaid enterprises
for the Bank of Agriculture by utilising the means of the
Agriculture Support Fund. These means are paid to the
enterprises on the basis of individual selection, and not
pursuant to certain rules which should be applied to all to
every enterprise processing agricultural goods. The
aforementioned enterprises, or companies, after the disputed
Resolution of the Government had been adopted, acquired the
right to never repay private expenses and debts. Besides, the
shareholders of these enterprises were granted an undeserved
right to get dividends, whereas the officials are indirectly
pardoned from material responsibility and from that of every
other kind for accomplished embezzlements which caused the said
debts.
2. Following the disputed Resolution of the Government, a
share of the means of the state budget which reside in the
Agriculture Support Fund is being utilised by violating Article
13 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Budgeting, as
well as Article 9 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on
State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture, i.e. the
said means are not being utilised for the purpose which the
aforesaid laws impose on the state means. In the opinion of the
petitioner, the cover of the debts of individual enterprises is
not provided for neither in Article 13 of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania on Budgeting which regulates allocations
of the appropriations of the state budget means for certain
needs of the state, nor in Article 9 of the Law of the Republic
of Lithuania on State Regulation of Economic Relations in
Agriculture which establishes the application of the purposive
financing of agricultural entities and partners of the
agriculture market.
3. The petitioner argues that the enterprises enumerated
in the supplement of the disputed Resolution of the Government
are not obliged to repay the state the acquired means. They are
instructed to increase their authorised capital (the state
capital share) with the sum of the acquired means. The debts of
the said enterprises, however, to cover which the state means
are allocated, in fact do not increase the authorised capital,
as these means pursuant to the disputed Resolution of the
Government must be transferred to the Bank of Agriculture. In
the opinion of the petitioner, the said means cannot be
considered additional contributions to the authorised capital,
therefore Part 1, Article 43 of Company Law which establishes
that it is additional contributions of its shareholders and of
other persons by which a company may increase its authorised
capital is thereby violated.
III
When preparing the case for the court hearing, Jonas
Panamariovas and Vytautas Poliūnas, secretaries of the Ministry
of Agriculture, and Irena Paulauskienė, the Head of the Staff
Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, representatives of the
party concerned, indicated that certain enterprises which
process goods of agriculture received a number of credits from
the Bank of Agriculture but on the grounds of various reasons
could not settle their accounts with farmers and repay credits
to the bank in time. Taking into account this fact, and in
order to create better conditions for the said enterprises to
settle their accounts with producers of agricultural goods, the
disputed Resolution of the Government was adopted. The said
Resolution does not violate the equality of people, and
privileges are not granted to individual persons. Therefore, in
the opinion of the representatives of the party concerned, the
disputed Resolution of the Government is legal and in
compliance with the Constitution.
The representatives of the party concerned maintain that
the financial position of the Bank of Agriculture needed
support, that the amount of problem loans which had been
granted on the grounds of the decisions of the Government
needed to be reduced, and conditions for the enterprises to
settle their accounts with producers of agricultural goods for
the sold goods had to be created.
Part 2, Article 46 of the Constitution consolidates that
the State shall support economic efforts and initiative which
are useful to the community. According to item 5, Article 13 of
the Law on Budgeting, appropriations from the State budget
shall be made for the regulation of national economy. In the
opinion of the representatives of the party concerned, the
notion of "economy" includes agriculture - the priority branch
of the national economy - as well. Item 13, Article 13 of the
Law on Budgeting permits to allocate the means from the State
budget for the implementation of not only the measures provided
for, but for other measures pursuant to the laws of the
Republic of Lithuania as well. Such is the Law of the Republic
of Lithuania on State Regulation of Economic Relations in
Agriculture. The norm of Part 2, Article 9 has provided for the
opportunity for the Government to establish priorities,
procedure and conditions of purposive financing, as well as
other types of purposive financing.
Item 2.2 of the 24 March 1995 Resolution No.421 of the
Government "On forming and utilising the 1995 Agriculture
Support Fund of the Republic of Lithuania" consolidates an
opportunity to utilise the means of the said fund for other
needs established by the Government as well. Thereby the
Government made use of the right which it had been granted by
laws and permitted nine enterprises to cover their debts for
the Bank of Agriculture from the means of the Agriculture
Support Fund. Thereby it was attempted to create better
conditions for them to settle their accounts with producers of
agricultural goods. By the disputed Resolution of the
Government the Ministry of Agriculture was commissioned to
subscribe for the shares which belong to the state of the
enterprises enumerated in the supplement of the Resolution, as
well as to represent the state in these enterprises.
The representatives of the party concerned explained that
the enterprises enumerated in the supplement of the disputed
Resolution of the Government had been chosen taking account of
their future perspective, as well as the following social and
economical criteria: new technologies introduced, strategic
location of the enterprises, producing capacity and the
interests of producers of agricultural goods.
The cover of the granted credits may not be used to cover
the losses of the aforementioned enterprises, as merely
settlements are being regulated and conditions are created to
pay the farmers for their goods but never the expenses made are
covered. The cover of the debts of the said enterprises for the
Bank of Agriculture cannot be treated as an embezzlement of the
state means. The state means are not lost by capitalising debts
of enterprises because the state will further manage, utilise
and dispose of the property - shares - which belongs to it.
When considering the structure of the authorised capital, one
can argue that the state influence to the management of the
enterprises through the block of shares will increase along
with the increase of the state capital share.
IV
Andrius Kubilius and Vidmantas Žiemelis, the
representatives of the petitioner, in the court hearing
confirmed the request of a group of the Seimas members and
explained that the disputed Resolution violated essential
principles of free market based on fair competition. They
maintained that the disputed Resolution violated Part 4,
Article 46 of the Constitution as well in which it is
established that the law shall prohibit monopolisation of
production and the market, and shall protect freedom of fair
competition. The increase of the state share in the authorised
capital of joint-stock companies is regulated by Part 2,
Article 128 of the Constitution, whereas the transfer of the
state capital into joint-stock companies should be regulated by
the law. In the opinion of the representatives of the
petitioner, constitutional provisions that the state shall
support economic efforts which are useful to the community may
be implemented only under the conditions mentioned in Part 4,
Article 46 of the Constitution, i.e. when the state guarantees
freedom of fair competition.
Andrius Kubilius, a representative of the petitioner,
explained that the contents of purposive financing as the
category of economics may be understood only in the context of
Article 9 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on State
Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture. This Article
permits to estimate the disposition of the state to create
extraordinary financing conditions for individual branches of
agriculture. This Article, however, does not mention whether
the Government is entitled to pick up one or nine enterprises
out of all enterprises or economical entities.
V
Jonas Panamariovas, a representative of the party
concerned, in the public hearing explained that the Office of
the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Lithuania checked the
actions of the state officials who initiated, prepared, adopted
and implemented the disputed Resolution of the Government, and
found no corpus delicti.
There exist more than 70% of shares which belong to the
state in the nine enterprises enumerated in the supplement of
the disputed Resolution of the Government. The said enterprises
function at a loss and the shareholders were not paid the 1995
dividends whereas after their debts for the bank had been
capitalised the coefficients of financial solvency of some of
the enterprises improved.
Vytautas Poliūnas, a representative of the party
concerned, explained also that the Agriculture Support Fund is
formed from the means assigned to the Programme of Promoting
National Agriculture which are foreseen in the budget of the
state. This fund may be disposed of by the Government, the
Council of Buying up and Regulating Agricultural Goods, and
County Commissions for Easy-Term Loans. The means of the
aforementioned fund were designed to meet the needs of
agriculture, therefore the disputed Resolution of the
Government does not contradict Article 13 of the Law on
Budgeting.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On the compliance of the 30 August 1995 Resolution
No.1164 of the Government of Lithuania "On the capitalisation
of the credits of some enterprises of the Ministry of
Agriculture" with the Constitution.
Part 1, Article 29 of the Constitution establishes: "All
people shall be equal before the law, the court, and other
State institutions and officers."
In the opinion of the petitioner, the disputed Resolution
of the Government contradicts Part 1, Article 29 of the
Constitution because the said Resolution permits the Ministry
of Agriculture to cover the debts of certain enterprises for
the Bank of Agriculture. The petitioner alleges that the
Government, when covering the debts of only nine enterprises by
the disputed Resolution, violated the constitutional principle
of the equality of people.
The principle that all people shall be equal before the
law, the court, and other state institutions and officers is
one of the primary principles which in its own turn is closely
linked with the remaining constitutional principles and
provisions. When interpreting the contents of the provision of
Part 1, Article 29 of the Constitution, it is impossible not to
consider the provision of Part 3, Article 46 of the
Constitution which stipulates that the state shall regulate
economic activity so that it serves the general welfare of the
people. The aforementioned provisions by determining each other
form constitutional pre-conditions to pass laws which respond
to the conditions of national economy, the diversity and change
of economical and social life.
Thus the constitutional principle of equality of people of
its own accord does not deny the fact that law may establish
different legal regulation concerning certain categories of
people who are in different situation. This should also be
applied to legal persons, and not only to natural persons as
the former are, as a rule, corporations of natural persons.
One has to take it into account that the legislator may,
when fulfilling his powers and passing laws, also formulate
principles which serve as a basis for a particular law. These
principles may not, however, be identified with the
constitutional ones. The reciprocal interaction of the
aforesaid principles has essential theoretical, as well as
practical, significance for legal regulation. The principles
established in laws may be altered by the means of law and,
which is most important, they may never violate constitutional
principles.
Assessing whether an established different legal
regulation is a grounded one, particular legal circumstances
must be taken into account. First of all differences of legal
situation of subjects and objects to which different legal
regulation is applied must be considered; secondly, one has to
take into account the conformity of legal acts to their
hierarchy, scope of regulation, etc.; thirdly, one must assess
if legal norms which establish special conditions answer the
purpose and aim of the legal act. Validity of individual legal
norms may be convincing only in the case that all
aforementioned circumstances were taken into account. Should
only one condition be ignored, doubts might arise concerning
the compliance of a special legal norm with constitutional
provisions.
In the disputed Resolution of the Government the aim of
different regulation is indicated - to create better conditions
for enterprises which process the production of agriculture to
settle their accounts with producers of agricultural goods. The
representatives of the party concerned indicated criteria
according to which the said enterprises had been chosen: they
did not return credits to the Bank of Agriculture, and,
furthermore, an attempt is being made to preserve new
technologies, as well as producing capacities introduced, and
their strategic location.
The arguments presented allow to state that the
constitutional principle of equality of people when the cover
of the debts of only some enterprises was established was not
violated.
The petitioner also alleges that the Government by
permitting with the disputed Resolution to utilise the means of
the state budget in order to cover the debts of certain
enterprises and by acquiring additional portion of shares of
those enterprises created conditions for the said enterprises
not to pay private expenses and debts. The shareholders of
these enterprises were granted an undeserved right to get
dividends whereas the officials of these enterprises are
indirectly pardoned from material responsibility and from that
of every other kind for accomplished embezzlements. Therefore
the situation of the shareholders and officials of the said
enterprises becomes a privileged one and this contradicts Part
1, Article 29 of the Constitution.
This allegation of the petitioner is not supported with
legal arguments. The disputed Resolution of the Government does
not regulate the questions of dividend payment to the
shareholders. The amount of dividends and their payments depend
upon the results of the economic activity of the enterprise,
and not upon the amount of the authorised capital. Neither does
this Resolution regulate the questions of responsibility of
persons who are responsible for economic and financial activity
of the enterprises. All this is regulated in Company Law, as
well as in other laws. If a breach of the law were established,
then a question of responsibility of individual persons would
arise. This is the problem of the application of legal norms,
and not that of the compliance of the disputed Resolution of
the Government with the Constitution.
Taking into account all the arguments set forth a
conclusion is to be drawn that the provision of the disputed
Resolution of the Government to cover the debts of only some
enterprises is in compliance with the principle of equality of
people which is established in the Constitution.
2. On the compliance of the 30 August 1995 Resolution
No.1164 of the Government of Lithuania "On the capitalisation
of the credits of some enterprises of the Ministry of
Agriculture" with Article 13 of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Budgeting, Article 9 of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on State Regulation of Economic Relations in
Agriculture, and Part 1, Article 43 of Company Law of the
Republic of Lithuania
1. The petitioner argues that the disputed Resolution of
the Government contradicts Article 13 of the Law on Budgeting
as the utilising the share of the means from the state budget
residing in the Agriculture Support Fund does not answer its
purpose - an individual debt of the enterprise is being covered
by utilising the means of the state budget.
The state budget is a centralised fund of financial
reserve in which a certain portion of national income is
accumulated and redistributed. It is annually approved of by
the Seimas.
Article 13 of the Law on Budgeting establishes that
appropriations from the state budget shall be made for the
following national needs: education, culture, health care and
sport; social welfare and social relief; science; environmental
protection; regulation of economic development; national
defence; maintenance of state power, state government and law
enforcement institutions; subsidies to regional and town
budgets; public order and protection of society; development of
the Republic's foreign relations; the expenses of coping with
the state debt; to increase the working cash balance of the
state budget. In addition to the enumerated needs it is
indicated that appropriations from the state budget shall be
made for implementation of other measures pursuant to the laws
of the Republic of Lithuania. In addition to other spheres of
social life this law indicates that appropriations shall be
made for "regulation of economic development" (item 5), as well
as for "implementation of other measures pursuant to the laws
of the Republic of Lithuania" (item 13).
Thus the legislator set forth very widely the "national
needs" as established in this Article of the said law, and he
foresaw an opportunity to make appropriations pursuant to other
laws as well. In the context of the case under investigation
such is the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in
Agriculture. According to the doctrine of law, in case there
exist an inconsistency between general and special legal norms,
then special legal norms should be applied. Therefore, when
deciding in this case whether the disputed Resolution of the
Government is in compliance with the laws, one must base
himself on the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in
Agriculture, and not on the Law on Budgeting.
2. The petitioner argues that the disputed Resolution of
the Government contradicts Article 9 of the Law on State
Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture because the
said law does not provide for any opportunity to cover
particular debts of individual enterprises. The petitioner
indicates that Article 9 of the said law prescribes only the
application of the purposive financing of agricultural entities
and partners of the agriculture market.
In order to establish whether the disputed Resolution of
the Government is in compliance with Article 9 of the said law,
not only the contents of this Article, but that of other
Articles of this law, as well as that of other legal norms and
their reciprocal interaction must be assessed.
Article 1 of the Law on State Regulation of Economic
Relations in Agriculture points out the aim of this law: to
standardise economic relations of agricultural entities with
the state institutions, as well as with partners of the
agriculture market; to establish the main measures of state
regulation of the said relations; to create prerequisites of
the implementation of the state agrarian policy and to sustain
the balance in the agriculture market.
When interpreting the contents of the norms of this law,
Article 4 is significant in which it is established that "The
state shall support, primarily on the basis of purposive
programmes, major producers of market agricultural goods, the
progress in science of agriculture, as well as in agricultural
technology, the preservation and improvement of land and other
natural resources, the implementation of bioorganic farming,
the establishment of specialised market farms, and it shall
protect the equality of entities of the agriculture in the
market."
The Constitutional Court deems that the priorities and
aims as set down in this law determine the interpretation of
the contents and the meaning of particular norms of this law.
Part 1, Article 5 of the Law on State Regulation of
Economic Relations in Agriculture establishes the main measures
of state regulation of agriculture: quotas of buying up
agricultural goods are guaranteed; the portion of the state
food provision reserve is either replenished or sold out; the
investments into agriculture are supported; the production of
agricultural goods, as well as import and export of foodstuffs,
are regulated; the quality of the goods is controlled; the
activity of economical entities which dominate the market is
restricted; the production of certain agricultural goods is
either stimulated or restricted; the interests of the branch of
agriculture are protected by international agreements.
By summarising the measures indicated a conclusion may be
drawn that here the law speaks about quotas, the state food
provision, import and export, the quality of goods, restriction
of the activity of economical entities, as well as that of the
production of goods, the protection of interests by
international agreements. Among other measures, it is directly
indicated that the investments into agriculture are supported.
Even though the ways of support of investments into
agriculture are not defined in the said law, investments in
law, however, are always linked to the utilisation of
corresponding means in pursuit of income. The state support of
investments into agriculture is implemented by establishing
reduced tax rates (Article 10), and by granting credits
(Article 8). In the latter Article it is foreseen that credits
on easy terms shall be granted by the competition procedure
through either the co-operatives of credits for agriculture, or
commercial banks. Besides, it was provided that the state shall
grant non-interest bearing loans from its own reserve in order
to form a system of the co-operative credit and provide
co-operatives of credit with tax deduction.
Part 2, Article 5 of the Law on State Regulation of
Economic Relations in Agriculture establishes that the
Government "may as well apply other means to regulate
agriculture." In the context of the case under investigation it
is important to assess the character of the other means which
could be applied by the Government in order to regulate
agriculture apart from those particularly mentioned in this
Article. On the basis of the systematic analysis of the
contents of Article 5 of the said law, the Constitutional Court
draws a conclusion that the Government, even though it can
apply other means to regulate agriculture as well, may not to
utilise the state financial reserve for the purposes which are
incompatible with the general meaning of the measures foreseen
in this law.
Article 9 of the Law on State Regulation of Economic
Relations in Agriculture provides for the "purposive financing"
of agricultural entities. In law financing, hence purposive one
as well, is understood, as a rule, as the appropriation of
financial means on gratuitous and irretrievable grounds. The
legislator, by defining the directions of purposive financing
in this Article, took into consideration the priorities of the
production of agricultural goods, as well as other
circumstances which are important to the activity of
agricultural entities and partners of the agriculture market.
In the 1995 state budget corresponding appropriations were
allocated to finance the Programme of National Agriculture
Activity in order to implement the measures provided for in the
Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture.
The Government by its 24 March 1995 Resolution "On forming and
utilising the 1995 Agriculture Support Fund of the Republic of
Lithuania" formed the 1995 Agriculture Support Fund. This fund
is formed from: the 1995 budget means assigned to finance the
Programme of National Agriculture Activity; the 1994 state
budget means assigned to finance the Programme of National
Agriculture Activity and in fact transferred to the Agriculture
Support Fund for the purpose of granting loans on easy terms;
loans on easy terms which are being returned and which were
granted to agricultural entities from the 1993 Spring Sowing
Fund; loans on easy terms which are being returned and which
economical entities were granted pursuant to particular
resolutions of the Government. It may be held that the main
resource of the Agriculture Support Fund is the means of the
state budget.
The Agriculture Support Fund is utilised for: granting
credits on easy terms for producers of agricultural goods, as
well as for legal and natural persons who are able to purchase
material resources in centralised manner and sell them to
producers of agricultural goods in favourable terms; promoting
co-operation in agriculture; supporting agricultural companies
which suffered from fires; stimulation of co-operative
agricultural trade; other needs as established by the
Government (item 2.2. of the 24 March 1995 Resolution No.421 of
the Government). Thus the means of this fund are assigned and
utilised in order to grant credits for and finance agricultural
entities and partners of the agriculture market.
Thus, "other needs as established by the Government"
pointed out in the Resolution of the Government "On forming and
utilising the 1995 Agriculture Support Fund of the Republic of
Lithuania", must conform to the aims and priorities of
supporting agriculture as laid down in the Law on State
Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture.
The Constitutional Court also notes that the legislator
when establishing the measures of state regulation by the Law
on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture
(Article 5), as well as the purposive financing (Article 9),
did not define in detail by means of what particular legal
forms the Government may utilise the state means, hence the
means of the Agriculture Support Fund as well. In Part 1,
Article 5 of the said law the measures of the sate regulation
are enumerated, and in Part 2 of this law it is stipulated:
"The Government of Lithuania may as well apply other means to
regulate agriculture." Article 9 of the said law enumerates
priorities of the purposive financing, as well as points out
that the Government may establish another purposive financing.
Therefore because of the vagueness of the notions used in this
law premises arise to interpret the contents of the norms of
the said law in various manner, as well as to ambiguously
understand the limits of legal regulation.
The Ministry of Agriculture was permitted by the disputed
Resolution of the Government to utilise the means of the
Agriculture Support Fund in order to cover the debts of certain
enterprises for the Bank of Agriculture, as well as to acquire
shares belonging to the state for the amount of those means in
the enterprises which will correspondingly increase their
authorised capital. This is defined as the "capitalisation of
credits". Such form of utilising the state means is not
established in the Law on State Regulation of Economic
Relations in Agriculture. It is only the legislator who may
establish the form of utilisation of the state means, as Part
2, Article 128 of the Constitution stipulates: "Procedures
concerning the management, utilisation, and disposal of State
property shall be established by law."
Taking into consideration the motives set forth a
conclusion is to be drawn that the 30 August 1995 Resolution of
the Government of Lithuania "On the capitalisation of the
credits of some enterprises of the Ministry of Agriculture"
contradicts the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations
in Agriculture.
3. Part 1, Article 43 of Company Law establishes: "A
company may increase its authorised capital by additional
contributions of its shareholders and of other persons only by
issuing new shares."
In the opinion of the petitioner, the disputed Resolution
of the Government contradicts the aforesaid norm of the law, as
after the debts of enterprises for the Bank of Agriculture had
been covered with the state means, their authorised capital may
not be increased because the said means remain with the bank.
The enterprises thereby are forced to increase their authorised
capital without additional contributions.
When deciding if the disputed Resolution of the Government
is in compliance with Part 1, Article 43 of Company Law, it is
necessary to take into account the contents of the provisions
of this Resolution, as well as to the fact that they
inseparably interact with each other. The whole complex of
these provisions consolidate a new form of utilisation of the
state means which in the disputed Resolution of the Government
is denominated as the capitalisation of credits.
The Constitutional Court has judged in this ruling that
the capitalisation of the credits contradict the Law on State
Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture, therefore the
question concerning the compliance of the disputed Resolution
of the Government with Part 1, Article 43 of Company Law is not
to be decided.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Articles 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the Law
of the Republic of Lithuania on the Constitutional Court, the
Constitutional Court has passed the following
ruling:
To recognise that the provision of the 30 August 1995
Resolution No.1164 of the Government of Lithuania "On the
capitalisation of the credits of some enterprises of the
Ministry of Agriculture" to cover the debts of only certain
enterprises does not contradict the principle of equality of
people which is consolidated in the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
To recognise that the 30 August 1995 Resolution No.1164 of
the Government of Lithuania "On the capitalisation of the
credits of some enterprises of the Ministry of Agriculture"
contradicts the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations
in Agriculture.
This Constitutional Court ruling is final and not subject
to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated on behalf of the Republic of
Lithuania.