Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of the provision "by applying
coefficient 10" of the 23 July 1993 Resolution No.
562 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania
"On indexation of people's savings" with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
26 June 1996, Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the justices of the Constitutional Court Egidijus
Jarašiūnas, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Augustinas
Normantas, Vladas Pavilonis, Jonas Prapiestis, Pranas Vytautas
Rasimavičius, Teodora Staugaitienė, and Juozas Žilys,
the secretary of the hearing - Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
the petitioner - Gediminas Vagnorius and Stasys Vėlyvis,
an Associate Professor, PhD, both representatives of a group of
the Seimas' members,
the party concerned - Lina Gasiūnaitė, Head of the
Division of Financial Institutions of the Ministry of Finance,
and Algirdas Cicėnas, Deputy Director of the Legal Department
of the Ministry of Justice, both representatives of the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania,
pursuant to Part 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Part 1 of Article 1 of the Law of
the Republic of Lithuania on Constitutional Court, in its
public hearing on 30 May 1996 conducted the investigation of
Case No. 6/95 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court
by the petitioner - a group of the Seimas' members - requesting
to investigate if the provision "by applying coefficient 10" of
the 23 July 1993 Resolution No. 562 of the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania "On indexation of people's savings" is in
compliance with Parts 1 and 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
The Government passed Resolution No. 562 "On indexation of
people's savings" on 23 July 1993 (Official Gazette "Valstybės
Žinios" No. 32-756, No. 65-1236, 1993; No. 76-1438, 1994; No.
3-41, 1995; hereinafter in the ruling referred to as the
disputed Resolution of the Government), item 1 whereof
establishes that state banks and State Insurance Office shall
index by applying coefficient 10 the savings of citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania, as well as those of persons who
permanently live in the Republic of Lithuania, and those of
rehabilitated persons who were deported from Lithuania and now
live abroad.
When the case was being prepared to the hearing of the
Constitutional Court, as well as during the judicial
investigation, the representatives of the petitioner grounded
their request with the following arguments:
1. It is established by the disputed Resolution of the
Government that the savings and insurance payments of the
people of Lithuania which had been accumulated until 26
February 1991 shall be indexed by applying coefficient 10, and
it means that people's deposits with their initial (actual)
value are, in essence, confiscated, i.e., private property
which was accumulated in the form of deposits is seized
practically gratuitously.
2. There were more than 7 milliard roubles of the deposits
of the people of Lithuania accumulated in savings banks and
State insurance offices during the period of Soviet occupation.
The savings banks did not dispose of these savings of the
people, they merely received deposits and controlled their
accounting. Soviet government would take people's deposits in
centralised manner as budgetary incomes and would utilise them
through the budget for the purpose of various needs of the
State.
The representatives of the petitioner noted that the
alienated means did not disappear: they were invested into
various branches of economy, thus, in Lithuania, about one
third of state property was created which, in essence, belongs
to individual persons, i.e., to all people, and not to the
State because the means of the aforesaid persons which were
accumulated in savings banks in the form of deposits were
materialised in state property that was created from them.
3. The representatives of the petitioner maintained that
inflation did not destroy people's deposits because deposits as
credit resources in fact existed neither in 1990, nor later:
they were converted into the property of state enterprises and
organisations. Since there were not any people's deposits in
the Savings Bank (they had been utilised by Soviet government),
thus, now it is possible to compensate them by selling a
corresponding share of state property, by indexing the deposits
with the inflation coefficient, and thereby the initial value
of the deposits could be restored.
On the grounds of the data of the Department of
Statistics, the representatives of the petitioner indicated
that the inflation coefficient was 113.46% from 1 March 1991
until 1 July 1993, therefore they made a conclusion that
people's savings in the form of deposits and insurance payments
which were indicated in item 1 of the disputed Resolution of
the Government should have been indexed "by applying
coefficient 113.46, and not coefficient 10".
4. The representatives of the petitioner pointed out that,
according to Articles 109 and 1091 of the Civil Code of the
Republic of Lithuania, people's deposits and other means which
could be identified with them and which are held in banks and
other credit offices shall belong to these people by the right
of private ownership. Besides, it is established in Part 5 of
Article 471 of the said code that "state shall guarantee
security and payment of the means of natural persons which are
held in the accounts of state, state-stock or other state
credit offices on the first demand of the person".
The decisions of the Seimas and the Government also point
out that the possessions of the State guarantee that people's
deposits will not be lost.
5. The representatives of the petitioner, on the grounds
of the provisions "property shall be inviolable" and "property
may only be seized for the needs of society according to the
procedure established by law and must be adequately compensated
for" of Article 23 of the Constitution, indicated that these
provisions are violated by the disputed Resolution of the
Government as: 1) by not returning the deposits to people, the
constitutional principle of inviolability of property is
violated; 2) the savings are seized even though there exist no
grounds indicated in Article 471 of the Civil Code to do so; 3)
the disputed Resolution of the Government does not indicate for
what needs of society people's savings are seized; 4) the
provision "must be adequately compensated for" is violated as
90% of people's deposits are seized at no cost.
6. The representatives of the petitioner alleged: "The
Government had (and has now) the possibility to restore
people's savings by means of the existing state property and
had to index people's savings according to coefficients" which
correspond the officially stated inflation indices. The
representatives of the petitioner indicated that, according to
the data of the Department of Statistics, on 1 January 1994
there was non-privatised property for 1.83 milliard litas,
whereas if this property were indexed by coefficient 10 as
established in the disputed Resolution of the Government, its
value would be 18.3 milliard litas. Approximately 8 milliard
litas are needed to index the deposits in their actual value.
In the opinion of the representatives of the petitioner,
there exists non-privatised property of enterprises for 10.5
milliard litas, i.e. this is more than needed to compensate the
deposits in their actual value. Besides, they noted that the
indexation coefficients established in the disputed Resolution
of the Government are several times lower than they ought to be
pursuant to the actual index of prices, therefore if the
existing non-privatised state property were indexed fairly,
i.e., according to the indices stated officially by the
Department of Statistics, there would be much more state
property than required to compensate people's devaluated
deposits in their actual value.
II
The representatives of the party concerned - the
Government - presented the following counter-arguments when the
case was being prepared for the Constitutional Court hearing,
as well as during the judicial investigation.
1. The disputed Resolution of the Government to index
people's deposits accumulated until 26 February 1991 in state
banks, as well as their insurance payments in the State
Insurance Office, by applying coefficient 10 was adopted taking
account of actual financial possibilities to accumulate the
required means to pay the compensations in cash but not in
state property. It was established by the calculations of the
Savings Bank of Lithuania, the Lithuanian Bank of Agriculture,
the State Commercial Bank and the State Insurance Office that
the total sum of people's deposits and insurance payments by
applying coefficient 10 is 539.8 million litas and that it must
be paid during the period of 11 years.
The Seimas by its 15 December 1993 Resolution No. 1-338
"On indexation of people's savings" (Official Gazette
"Valstybės Žinios", No. 71-1329, 1993) approved of coefficient
10 which was established in the disputed Resolution of the
Government and recognised that the savings, the added interests
and calculated by the established manner compensations for
savings are the internal loan of the State of the Republic of
Lithuania to people. Moreover, this Resolution recommended the
Government to establish the Fund of Restoration and
Compensation of Savings in which means would be accumulated to
repay the established compensations.
2. The Government by its 21 February 1994 Resolution No.
34 "On the restoration of people's savings, as well as on
payments of compensation in 1994" (Official Gazette "Valstybės
Žinios", No. 7-115, 1994) established the Fund of Restoration
and Compensation of Savings the regulations whereof were
approved by the Seimas by its 26 April 1994 Resolution "On the
approval of the regulations of the Fund of Restoration and
Compensation of Savings" (Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios"
No. 33-589, 1994). When implementing the aforesaid resolutions,
35.78 million litas were transferred from the said fund for
compensation payments until 17 July 1995, whereas 163.5 million
litas were assigned to pay compensations for the years of
1993-1994.
3. The representatives of the party concerned refuted the
allegation of the representatives of the petitioner that about
one third of state property was created out of the seized
savings of people. In their opinion, such an allegation is not
grounded on any objective calculations because it is impossible
to do so. As it is known, people's savings were used in
centralised manner as budget income to finance various projects
in the former republics of the Soviet Union. Therefore it is
impossible to establish what objects and in what republics of
the former Soviet Union were built for the Lithuanian people's
seized savings accumulated in the savings banks.
4. The representatives of the party concerned pointed out
that the Government by its 19 April 1995 Resolution No. 554 "On
the internal loan of the State of Lithuania, as well as the
share of state stock capital in the Lithuanian Savings Bank"
(Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios", No. 34-843, 1995)
commissioned the Ministry of Finance to sign an agreement with
the Savings Bank concerning the internal loan of the State of
Lithuania which appeared due to the seized savings by the
Central Bank of the former USSR as well as the necessity to
return the calculated and charged to accounts interests. The
agreement between the Government and the Savings Bank was
signed on 15 May 1995.
In the opinion of the representatives of the party
concerned, not only the devalued savings of depositors but also
those of all entities of economy, as well as other property,
should be compensated due to inflation. The means accumulated
in the Savings Bank until 26 January 1991 were in fact seized
by the former Soviet Union and, until now, were not returned to
Lithuania. The agreement regarding the returning of the seized
savings of people has not been signed with Russian Federation
yet.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1.1. On 11 March 1990, the Supreme Council of the Republic
of Lithuania passed the Law "On the Provisional Principal Law
of the Republic of Lithuania". It confirmed the Provisional
Principal Law of the Republic of Lithuania by Article 2 of the
said law, whereas by Article 3 of the said law it established
that such laws and other legal acts which had been in force
until then shall be valid in the Republic of Lithuania which
are in compliance with the Provisional Principal Law of the
Republic of Lithuania. Thus, upon the reinstatement of the
Independent State of Lithuania, for some time laws which had
been in force until then, among them those regulating the legal
status of people's savings in savings banks, were valid in the
legal system of Lithuania.
It is established in Article 93 of the Provisional
Principal Law of the Republic of Lithuania that the "the
Government shall implement executive power in the Republic of
Lithuania", whereas Article 100 provides that the composition
of the Government, its jurisdiction and principles of activity
shall be established by the Law on the Government. The Supreme
Council passed the Law on the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania on 22 March 1990 (Official Gazette "Valstybės
Žinios", No. 11-330, 1990; hereinafter in the ruling referred
to as the Law on the Government). It is established in item 1
of Article 2 of the said law that the Government shall take
concern for "preservation and augmentation of the property of
the Republic, guarantee all property subjects freedom of
economic activity, the variety of property forms, as well as
their equality", whereas in Article 15 it is stipulated that
"pursuant to its jurisdiction, the Government shall take
decisions regarding implementation of state policy in the
spheres of money circulation and money".
1.2. During the period of Soviet occupation, people's
savings in the form of deposits were accumulated in the state
labour savings banks of the USSR (hereinafter in the ruling
referred to as the savings banks). The savings banks
constituted part of a unified, centralised, Union system of
credit offices which was subordinate to the State Bank of the
USSR. The activity of savings banks was regulated by the USSR
laws, substatutory normative legal acts, directions and
instructions of the State Bank of the USSR, as well as
regulations of savings banks.
The relations which appeared between savings banks and
people due to the held deposits and the procedure of their
utilisation were regulated by "The Regulations of State Labour
Savings Banks of the USSR" (hereinafter in the ruling referred
to as the Regulations) that were approved by the 11 July 1977
Resolution No. 623 of the Soviet of Ministers of the USSR. The
Regulations indicated that one of the main objectives of the
savings banks is to provide people with an opportunity to
preserve and accumulate savings in the savings banks, and to
utilise the savings in the interests of economy. The savings of
people of Lithuania which had been accumulated in the savings
banks and other credit offices would be transferred in
centralised manner to the budget of the Soviet Union.
It was established in item 5 of the Regulations that the
security and privacy of savings or other valuable items as well
as their payment on the first demand of the depositor shall be
guaranteed by the state. It was provided for in item 18 of the
said Regulations that the depositor was entitled to dispose of
his deposit.
2. Upon the reinstatement of the Independent State of
Lithuania, the Soviet Union undertook military, political, and
economic actions against Lithuania. Among them, actual seizure
of savings of people of Lithuania which were accumulated in the
savings banks was used as means of economic and financial
pressure.
Under such a situation, on 28 April 1990, the Government
adopted Resolution No. 133 "Concerning the measures to
stabilise the activity of Lithuanian economy as well as
provision to people under the situation of economic blockade",
as well as Resolution No. 134 "Regarding anti-blockade measures
to regulate money circulation and to manage account settling".
These resolutions attempted to ensure the functioning of
national economy by the foreseen economic measures. Item 1 of
Resolution No. 134 commissioned banks of the Republic of
Lithuania, self-government bodies of cities and districts, to
induce, in every way possible, concentration of people's
savings into deposits in the offices of the Lithuanian Savings
Bank, as well as those of other banks. It was established that
the Republic of Lithuania guarantees with its property that
people's deposits will not be lost. That corresponded the norm
of Article 471 of the Civil Code that "the State shall
guarantee privacy, security and payment of deposits on the
first demand of the depositor". This norm is valid at present,
too.
The guaranty of the Government that "deposits will not be
lost", concerned not only the deposits which were transferred
to the Savings Bank or other banks' offices already after the
28 April 1990 Resolution No. 134 had been adopted but also
those which had been put into the savings banks during the
period of occupation and which could not be taken back by
people as in fact the Soviet government seized them. Such a
commitment was confirmed by the 28 March 1991 Resolution No.
106 of the Government "On protection of people's savings, as
well as insurance payments, from devaluation related with the
rise of prices on this occasion". Item 1 of this Resolution
prescribed: "50% of deposits' value shall be compensated to
people of the Republic of Lithuania provided that the sum of
5000 roubles shall not be exceeded for one person, whereas the
sum up to 7000 roubles shall not be exceeded for former
political prisoners and deportees." In like manner, and with
the same sums, the devaluation of saved payments by life and
pension insurance was compensated. The devaluation of deposits,
as well as that of payments of life and pension insurance, was
compensated according to the situation of 26 February 1991 by
allocating corresponding compensation to acquire some of state
property subject to privatisation.
The fact that people's deposits, accumulated until 26
February 1991 and after, would not be lost and be exchanged
into the national currency on favourable conditions was also
confirmed by the 31 January 1992 Resolution No. 67 "On inducing
people to sell farm products to the State during winter and
spring months". It was established in item 2 of Part 1 of this
Resolution that a favourable rate of exchange into the national
currency shall be applied to the means transferred either into
individual deposit or individual farmers' clearing accounts (by
equating these means to the inventoried 26 February 1991
deposits with the rate 1 to 5 according to the prices' rise
index).
It should be noted that in the aforementioned resolutions
the commitment of the Government is expressed in general
statements ('the deposits will not be lost", "the deposits will
not be lost and be exchanged into the national currency on
favourable conditions", etc.) but it was not indicated,
however, on the grounds of what particular criteria, on what
amount, by what manner and during what time period people's
deposits accumulated in the Savings Bank or other credit
offices will be compensated.
On 5 November 1991, the Supreme Council passed the Law on
Issuing the Money of the Republic of Lithuania Part 3 of
Article 3 whereof stipulated that "the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania, until the complete withdrawal of coupons
from circulation, shall establish the amount and procedure of
the compensation of the devalued savings of people possessed
until 26 February 1991 and held in the Lithuanian Savings
Bank". Thus this law once again confirmed the right of the
Government to establish the amount of the devalued deposits and
the procedure of their payment (Official Gazette "Valstybės
Žinios", No. 33-896, 1991; No. 12-297, No. 27-622, 1993).
From the mentioned above, as well as pursuant to the
Provisional Principal Law of the Republic of Lithuania, the Law
on the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (adopted in
1990), the Law on Issuing the Money of the Republic of
Lithuania and other legal acts, a conclusion is to be made that
the Government was entitled to establish the amount of the
compensation and the procedure of its payment.
3.1. The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania was
adopted in the referendum on 25 October 1992. It is established
in Article 128 of the Constitution that decisions concerning
state loans and other basic property liabilities of the State
shall be adopted by the Seimas on the recommendation of the
Government.
Article 2 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the
Procedure for the Enforcement of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania stipulates that "laws, other legal acts,
or parts thereof which were in effect on the territory of the
Republic of Lithuania prior to the adoption of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania, shall be effective provided they
do not contradict the Constitution and this Law, and shall
remain effective until their are either declared null and void
or co-ordinated with the provisions of the Constitution".
It means that the legal acts of the Supreme Council and
the Government whereby it was pledged to compensate the
deposits of people of Lithuania and which were passed prior to
the adoption of the Constitution are also mandatory to the
institutions of power and government after the Constitution
went into effect.
The permanence of these commitments is confirmed by
subsequently adopted legal acts by the Seimas and the
Government, too.
The Seimas recognised in item 2 of its 15 December 1993
Resolution No. 1-338 "On indexation of people's savings" that
"people's deposits accumulated until 1 January 1991, as well as
the calculated interests for the deposits, and the
compensations of people's savings and insurance payments
calculated in the manner prescribed in item 1 of this
Resolution shall be internal loan of the State of the Republic
of Lithuania to people". The Seimas, by this resolution, while
fulfilling the provision of Article 128 of the Constitution,
implemented the right conferred to it and recognised that
compensation for people's savings and insurance payments is
internal loan of the State of the Republic of Lithuania to
people (Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios", No. 71-1329,
1993).
It was established in the said resolution that by
assessing financial capacity of the State the Seimas took the
decision to compensate people's savings in 1994 according to
then in effect resolutions of the Government (No. 562 adopted
on 23 July 1993, and No. 834 adopted on 12 November 1993).
The Government following the Law on Issuing the Money of
the Republic of Lithuania which was passed by the Supreme
Council on 5 November 1991 and fulfilling the 14 June 1993
Resolution of the Litas Committee "On issuing national money
and withdrawal of temporary money - coupons - from
circulation", on 23 July 1993 adopted its Resolution No. 562
"On indexation of people's savings". In the preamble of the
aforesaid resolution it was indicated that the Government takes
into consideration the grave economic and financial situation
of the Republic of Lithuania, therefore in item 1 it was
provided that state banks and the State Insurance Office shall
index by applying coefficient 10 the savings of citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania, as well as those of persons who
permanently live in the Republic of Lithuania, and those of
rehabilitated persons who were exiled from Lithuania and now
live abroad.
Items 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 of the disputed
Resolution of the Government established the compensation
procedure of people's accumulated savings. The said items
established the dates taking account of which newly consigned
deposits or the remainder subject to compensation of prior
consigned deposits had to be calculated.
It was established in item 2 of this resolution that
people's deposits accumulated in state banks until 1 June 1992,
shall be indexed by applying coefficient 2 pursuant to the
procedure provided for in the 31 January Resolution No. 67 of
the Government "On inducing people to sell farm products to the
State during winter and spring months" provided that the
remainder of these deposits had not changed until 24 June 1993.
Furthermore, it was indicated that the means received for sold
farm products until 1 June 1992 and which were included into
people's accounts overdue shall be indexed by applying
coefficient 2 (Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios" No. 10-270,
1992; No. 65-1236,1993).
Thus the Seimas in fact agreed that the Government by its
resolutions in different periods of time established different
amount of savings' compensation.
3.2. The Government, when implementing the 15 December
1993 Resolution of the Seimas "On indexing people's savings",
adopted its 21 January 1994 Resolution No. 34 "On the
restoration of people's savings as well as on payments of
compensation in 1994". It was provided for in item 1 of this
resolution to form a particular Fund of Restoration and
Compensation of Savings. Moreover, it was recognised in item 3
of the aforementioned resolution that the internal loan of the
State of the Republic of Lithuania to the Lithuanian Savings
Bank shall comprise of people's deposits accumulated in the
bank until 1 January 1991 and seized by the former Soviet Union
at the same time, whereas in item 3.3 the provision of the 23
July 1993 Resolution No. 562 was reiterated that compensations
to people for accumulated deposits and insurance payments shall
be calculated by applying indexation coefficient 10.
The Seimas by its 26 April 1994 Resolution "On the
approval of the regulations of the Fund of Restoration and
Compensation of Savings" approved the regulations of the Fund
of Restoration and Compensation of Savings following which the
means are accumulated to compensate people's deposits. It is
indicated in Part 2 of the said resolution that one of the
sources of forming the Fund of Restoration and Compensation of
Savings is compensations for the seized deposits of the Central
Savings Bank of the former USSR acquired upon signing a
corresponding agreement with Russian Federation. Besides, on 15
May 1995, the Government and the Lithuanian Savings Bank signed
an agreement where the Government committed itself to cover the
loan to this bank for the loans being returned to people during
the period of 10 years.
Thus, upon adoption of the Constitution, the State,
however, did not decline its initial commitments to compensate
people their deposits even though the legally grounded scope of
deposits' protection was not established.
4. The representatives of the petitioner, on the grounds
of the provision "property shall be inviolable" of Part 1 of
Article 23 of the Constitution, as well as that of Part 3 which
stipulates "property may only be seized for the needs of
society according to the procedure established by law and must
be adequately compensated for" alleged that the disputed
Resolution of the Government violates property rights of the
depositors.
It is established in Part 1 of Article 1091 of the Civil
Code that the object of private ownership may be any property
without restricting its amount provided that this code and
other laws do not prohibit to hold this property in accordance
with the right to private ownership.
According to the doctrine of law, the right of claim is a
type of property. Therefore the right of claim, as well as any
other property, is the object of private ownership. Thus the
object of the right of the depositor to ownership is the right
of claim, whereas the object of the right of tangible property
is particularised property. The owner's property rights are
protected to the same extent irrespective of the object of the
right to private ownership providing the law does not establish
any exceptions. From the mentioned above a conclusion is to be
made that the subjective rights of claim of the owner must be
protected along with his rights to tangible property following
the principles of protection developed in property law.
The representatives of the petitioner interpreted the
notions "the State guarantees that people's deposits will not
be lost", "the State ensures the security of deposits" as the
commitment of the State to preserve the value of the deposits.
The notion "security of deposits" which is used in legal
acts is a juridical notion which is interpreted as safekeeping
of deposits in credit offices which are responsible for the
preservation of the deposits' nominal value and which guarantee
their payment on the first demand of the depositor with the
interest established by law or agreement of the parties.
"The preservation of value of the deposits" is interpreted
as an economic category. Devaluation of deposits, as a rule, is
caused by objective economic developments (as well as
inflation) which are not dependent upon the will of the credit
office that keeps people's deposits.
Thus the notions "security of deposits" and "the
preservation of value of the deposits" cannot be identified
according to the juridical and economic meaning of their
content.
Deposits, in part, may be preserved from devaluation by
paying interests for them, by forming individual or joint
insurance systems of private banks, etc. However, even though
deposit insurance system is created for the purpose of deposit
protection, as a rule, only the payment of nominal value sum is
guaranteed but not compensation of the losses suffered because
of inflation.
The representatives of the petitioner identified
insufficient compensation with seizure (confiscation) of
deposits provided for in Part 4 of Article 471 of the Civil
Code. However, this interpretation means identification of two
notions which are different in their legal characteristics.
Part 4 of Article 471 indicates legal grounds in the presence
of which deposits may be exacted or confiscated, i.e., it
indicates when exceptions can be made from the principle of
deposits' security guaranteed by the State. Meanwhile,
devaluation of deposits because of inflation is an economic
phenomenon.
5. A conclusion is to be made from the motives set forth
that the State must fulfil its commitments to people and
compensate the devaluated deposits. The establishment of the
amount of compensation is a prerogative of the Seimas as it is
established in Article 128 of the Constitution that decisions
concerning state loans and other basic property liabilities of
the State shall be adopted by the Seimas on the recommendation
of the Government. The Constitutional Court also notes that the
Seimas is not bound by earlier adopted legal acts, therefore,
by taking account of actual possibilities, it may establish
other compensation coefficients of people's devalued deposits
and insurance payments.
The Constitutional Court on the grounds of the motives set
forth has made a conclusion that there are not any sufficient
legal arguments to ground as to what amount of indexation
coefficient must be held as corresponding the constitutional
principle of inviolability of property, therefore the provision
of the disputed Resolution of the Government may not be held as
contradicting Article 23 of the Constitution.
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 "by applying coefficient
10" of the 23 July 1993 Resolution No. 562 of the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania "On indexation of people's savings"
is in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
This Constitutional Court ruling is final and not subject
to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated on behalf of the Republic of
Lithuania.