Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of Item 3.1 of the 23 August
1996 Republic of Lithuania Government Resolution
No. 1004 "On increase of minimal remuneration for
work" with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, Part 1 of Article 499 of the Civil Code
of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 2 of the
Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Remuneration
for Work
20 January 1997, 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 - Benjaminas Merčaitis, Head of the Labour
Relations Division of the Ministry of Social Security and
Labour, and Vita Safjan, Head of the Analysis and Prognosis
Division of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, both
are the 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 on
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its
public hearing on 20 December 1995 conducted the investigation
of Case No. 14/96 subsequent to the petition submitted to the
Court by the petitioner - Rokiškis Regional District Court -
requesting to investigate if Item 3.1 of the 23 August 1996
Republic of Lithuania Government Resolution No. 1004 "On
increase of minimal remuneration for work" is in compliance
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Part 1 of
Article 499 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania and
Article 2 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on
Remuneration for Work.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
On 18 October 1996, the petitioner - Rokiškis Regional
District Court - was investigating a civil case subsequent to
the action of the plaintiff B. Balčiūnas against the respondent
the private company "Kavoliškis" concerning damage compensation
on the grounds of harmed health. By its interlocutory ruling
the said court suspended the investigation of the case and
appealed to the Constitutional Court with the request to
investigate if Item 3.1 of the 23 August 1996 Republic of
Lithuania Government Resolution No. 1004 "On increase of
minimal remuneration for work" (Official Gazette "Valstybės
žinios", No. 81-1956, 1996; hereinafter in the ruling referred
to as the disputed Resolution) is in compliance with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Part 1 of Article
499 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania and Article
2 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Remuneration for
Work.
II
The petitioner grounds its request in its interlocutory
ruling, as well as its explanatory paper, on the following
legal arguments.
The petitioner points out that Item 3.1 of the Government
Resolution establishes that "beginning from 1 September 1996,
the calculated damage compensation to persons who suffered
injury when at work may not be less than the portion of the sum
of 420 Lt which corresponds the loss of the percentage of
professional working-capacity". The petitioner is of the
opinion that this norm contradicts Part 1 of Article 499 of the
Civil Code wherein it is prescribed that "providing an employee
has been crippled or otherwise his health has been harmed when
fulfilling his work (or official) duties through the fault of
the organisation or natural person that must pay social
insurance contributions for him, then the said organisation or
natural person must compensate the damage to the person who has
suffered injury so that the inflicted damage does not exceed
the sum of money which was designated and the pension actually
received. Exceptions of this rule may be established only by
the laws of the Republic of Lithuania". The petitioner
concludes from this norm that "it is the difference between the
inflicted harm to the person who suffered injury and the money
sum of pension which was designated to him and which he
actually receives that constitutes damage compensation which
must be paid by the organisation through the fault of which the
said damage was inflicted". As the average monthly remuneration
of the plaintiff is 369.64 Lt, then, in the opinion of the
petitioner, conforming to Part 1 of Article 499 of the Civil
Code, the respondent should monthly repay the damage by paying
67.32 Lt which is constituted by the difference between the
inflicted harm and the designated and actually received
pension.
The petitioner indicates that Part 2 of Article 2 of the
Law on Remuneration for Work provides that "An employee's
hourly remuneration (monthly salary) may not be less than the
minimum hourly wage (monthly salary) established by the State".
The average monthly salary of the plaintiff B. Balčiūnas was
369.64 Lt. On the day when he lost his working-capacity, i.e.,
on 16 May 1996, the minimal monthly salary was established as
210 Lt by Item 1.2 of the Government 28 December 1995 No. 1635
"On increase of minimal amounts and other payments". The
petitioner is of the opinion that the salary which was received
by the plaintiff exceeded the said minimal monthly salary,
therefore the rights of the plaintiff were not violated.
The petitioner also points out that according to Part 1 of
Article 499 of the Civil Code, exceptions of these provisions
may be established only by laws of the Republic of Lithuania.
In the opinion of the petitioner, such exceptions must be
provided by the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Insurance
against Accidents at Work as it is established in Part 1 of
Article 78 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Labour
Protection.
The petitioner alleges that it is not clear why, according
to the disputed Resolution, "for one group of employees only
minimal monthly salary, i.e., at present 300 Lt, is guaranteed
by law, whereas for another group of employees, i.e., those who
suffered from harmed health at work - 420 Lt - as minimal
social guarantee." Besides, the petitioner concludes on the
grounds of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Individual
Income Security that the Government is entitled to index
constant payments (grants, salaries, pensions, social benefits)
but not to change the amount for damage which is to be
compensated.
III
When the case was being prepared for judicial
investigation, as well as during the court hearing, the
representatives of the party concerned presented the following
counter-arguments.
1. They indicated that under the 4 December 1991
Government Resolution No. 527 "On increase of damage
compensation which is received for harmed health or because of
the death of the person who suffered injury", damage
compensation for harmed health was indexed by using a
coefficients' table. The amounts of the said coefficients were
grounded on the changes of average yearly remuneration for work
in Lithuania.
In pursuance of the 26 February 1992 Government Resolution
No. 129 "On indexation of remuneration, pensions and other
payments", 31 March 1992 Resolution No. 210 "On indexation of
remuneration, pensions and other payments", as well as 27 April
1992 Resolution No. 295 "On indexation of remuneration,
pensions and other payments", indexation was accomplished by
increasing calculated damage compensations with respective
percentage.
The Government established by its 21 August 1992
Resolution No. 629 "On indexation of remuneration for work and
other payments" that when indexing damage compensation, a
minimal guarantee must be applied to the indexed damage
compensation, i.e., it established minimal amounts of the
indexed damage compensation and these amounts depended on the
percentage of loss of the harmed professional working-capacity
and minimal monthly wage.
2. The representatives of the party concerned allege that
it was necessary to increase the minimum damage compensation as
the prices in December 1992, if compared to those of December
1991, were higher 12.6 times, and in 1993 - respectively 2.8
times. The accomplished indexation could not entirely cover the
lost income due to the price increase of the persons who
suffered injury because of harmed health. Thereby the factual
amount of damage compensations which had been calculated 10-20
years before and which decreased considerably.
In attempt to cover the lost income of the said persons,
the Government established by its 17 August 1993 Resolution No.
629 "On indexation of remuneration for work and other payments"
new minimal amounts of the indexed damage compensation, whereas
the calculation of the said amounts depended on the percentage
of loss of the professional working-capacity of the harmed
person and double minimal monthly salary.
However, after the Government established by its 28
December 1995 No. 1635 "On increase of minimal amounts and
other payments" that the minimal monthly wage shall be 210 Lt
and that the minimal hourly remuneration shall be 1.23 Lt, the
actual amount of damage compensation has been changing much
more rapidly than that of other social payments (pensions,
illness benefits, benefits paid to families, etc.).
The representatives of the party concerned are of the
opinion that the actual amount of damage compensation will
change even more because the Government adopted the disputed 23
August 1996 Resolution and Item 1 thereof confirms that
beginning from 1 September 1996 the minimal monthly wage shall
be 300 Lt and the minimal hourly remuneration shall be 1.76 Lt.
If the order established by the 17 August 1993 Government
Resolution No. 629 concerning calculation of compensation of
inflicted damage were left unchanged, i.e., if the damage were
calculated taking account of the loss percentage of the
working-capacity and double minimal monthly wage, the actual
amount of damage compensation would be changing more swiftly
than that of other social payments (pensions, illness benefits,
the benefits paid to families, etc.). Therefore the Government
established by Item 3.1 of its disputed Resolution that
beginning from 1 September 1996, the calculated damage
compensation to persons who suffered injury when at work may
not be less than the portion of the sum of 420 Lt which
corresponds to the loss of the percentage of the professional
working-capacity.
3. The representatives of the party concerned allege that
such a minimal social guarantee as established by the
Government manifests itself so that the sum from which the
damage compensation is calculated may not be less than 420 Lt.
Provided the average remuneration for work of the person who
suffered injury and from which damage compensation is
calculated is higher than 420 Lt, then damage compensation is
calculated from the wage actually received.
The representatives of the party concerned are of the
opinion that Item 3.1 of the disputed Government Resolution is
in compliance with the Constitution, Part 1 of Article 499 of
the Civil Code and Article 2 of the Law on Remuneration for
Work. The said item "established a minimal guarantee of the
compensation for the calculated damage, i.e., the sum from
which damage compensation is calculated but not the manner of
damage compensation. The latter is established by the Part 1 of
Article 499 of the Civil Code." The disputed Item 3.1 of the
Government Resolution is in compliance with the Law on
Remuneration for Work as the minimal guarantee of damage
compensation which is established by the said item is not
linked with a minimal average remuneration.
In addition, the representatives of the party concerned
allege that the issues raised by the petitioner are the matter
of application of legal provisions while investigating a civil
case regarding damage compensation but never the object subject
to investigation as provided in Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On 23 August 1996, the Government adopted Resolution
No. 1004 "On increase of minimal remuneration for work" and
confirmed by Item 1 thereof that beginning from 1 September
1996 the minimal monthly wage shall be 300 Lt, and the minimal
hourly remuneration shall be 1.76 Lt.
By establishing a minimal monthly wage and minimal hourly
remuneration, the Government implemented Item 2 of the 9
January 1991 Supreme Council Resolution No. 1-925 "On the
Enforcement of the Law on Remuneration for Work" whereby it was
established that "the Government of the Republic of Lithuania
shall establish the minimum hourly remuneration (minimum
monthly salary), taking into consideration the approved minimum
cost living".
It is established in Item 3.1 of the said disputed
Government Resolution that beginning from 1 September 1996, the
calculated damage compensation to persons who suffered injury
when at work may not be less than the portion of the sum of 420
Lt which corresponds the percentage of loss of the professional
working-capacity.
The petitioner alleges that Item 3.1 of the said
resolution contradicts the Constitution, Article 2 of the Law
on Remuneration for Work and Part 1 of Article 499 of the Civil
Code wherein it is established that compensation for material
damage due to harmed health when at work may be regulated only
by law. In the opinion of the petitioner, compensation for
material damage due to harmed health when at work may be
established only by law. The Government is entitled to index
constant payments (grants, wages, pensions, social benefits)
but it has no right to change the amount of the damage which is
to be compensated.
2.1. In the doctrine of law damage is generally understood
as an injury of a person, deprivation of his life, or harm made
to his rights or interests that are protected by law, as well
as damage or wreckage of property due to which the person who
suffered losses may not get back respective values or he loses
them.
Part 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution stipulates: "The
law shall establish the procedure for compensating material and
moral damage inflicted on person."
When interpreting the content of this constitutional
provision, one must hold that the necessity to compensate
material and moral damage inflicted on person is a
constitutional principle. While implementing this
constitutional principle, it is attempted to ensure that the
persons who suffered material or moral damage be compensated
for it. This must be considered in the lawmaking work, too.
Part 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution also clearly
indicates the form of legal act whereby compensation for
material and moral damage must be regulated. By establishing
the form of legal regulation based on law, it is attempted to
create unchanging legal preconditions to secure the rights and
legitimate interests of the person who has been crippled or his
health was otherwise harmed.
2.2. The provisions of Part 2 of Article 30 of the
Constitution are realised in laws. For instance, Part 1 of
Article 78 of the Law on Labour Protection prescribes: "The
damage compensation of working-capacity loss, as well as that
of treatment, nursing, prosthetics and other expenses of the
employee who due to an accident at work, occupational disease
or other type of harmed health connected with his work has lost
his working-capacity, and in case of the death of the person
who suffered injury, the damage compensation to his family or
other persons shall be regulated by the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Insurance against Accidents at Work as well as
other laws."
Part 1 of Article 483 of the Civil Code establishes: "The
damage which was inflicted to the personality or property of a
natural person, as well as the damage which was inflicted to an
organisation, must be fully compensated by the person that
inflicted it with the exception of the cases provided by the
laws of the Republic of Lithuania." This norm establishes an
important principle of damage compensation: the damage
inflicted to the person or property must be fully compensated.
Alongside, it must be noted that, however, the law may also
provide for other cases when the inflicted damage is to be not
fully compensated or the person who inflicted the damage is
exonerated from damage compensation (e.g., provided the person
who suffered injury is guilty himself (Article 497); in case of
indispensable defence (Article 487), etc.).
Part 1 of Article 498 of the Civil Code stipulates:
"Provided a natural person has been crippled or his health was
harmed otherwise, then the organisation or the natural person
that is responsible for the damage must compensate the
remuneration of the person who suffered injuries which he lost
due to the loss or diminishing of his working-capacity, as well
as the expenses made because of the harmed health (improved
nourishment, prosthetics, nursing (provided the nursing was
accomplished by outsiders), treatment expenses (except for free
treatment), etc.)." It is evident from the content of this norm
that the wage of the person who suffered injury prior to his
injury and which he lost or it decreased due to the infliction
constitutes damage compensation. Additional expenses which had
to be made because of the injury must also be compensated to
the person who suffered injuries.
The employee's remuneration for work, as a rule, depends
on labour demand and supply on the labour market, as well as
the amount and quality of work and the activity results of an
enterprise. However, according to Part 2 of Article 2 of the
Law on Remuneration for Work, "an employee's hourly
remuneration (monthly salary) may not be less than the minimum
hourly remuneration (monthly salary) established by the State".
Hence a conclusion may be drawn that in cases when an
employee's hourly remuneration (monthly salary) prior to the
injury was less than the established minimal hourly
remuneration (minimal monthly salary), the damage compensation
must be calculated according to the minimal remuneration
established by law.
Part 1 of Article 499 of the Civil Code prescribes that
"providing an employee has been crippled or otherwise his
health has been harmed when fulfilling his work (or official)
duties through the fault of the organisation or natural person
that must pay social insurance contributions for him, then the
said organisation or natural person must compensate the damage
to the person who has suffered injury so that than the
inflicted damage does not exceed the sum of money which was
designated and the pension actually received. Exceptions of
this rule may be established only by the laws of the Republic
of Lithuania".
The following conclusions are to be drawn from the content
analysis of Articles 498 and 499 of the Civil Code and that of
Article 2 of the Law on Remuneration for Work: 1) the amount of
damage compensation depends on the wage received prior to
injury at work; 2) the amount of the damage is the portion of
the sum of the wage which corresponds to the loss of the
percentage of the working-capacity; 3) the damage is
compensated to the person who suffered injures so that the
inflicted damage does not exceed the sum of the benefit
received or the pension designated after the health infliction
and actually received; 4) provided that prior to the injury the
wage of the employee who suffered infliction was less than the
minimum remuneration established by the State, then damage
compensation is calculated according to the minimum wage
established by the State.
The said provisions concerning damage compensation must be
consolidated and changed only by law. The Government by
establishing the minimal compensation of calculated damage to
persons due to harmed health at work by Item 3.1 of its 23
August 1996 Resolution No. 1004 "On increase of minimal
remuneration for work", however, changed the provisions of
material damage compensation which are established by law and
thereby interfered into the sphere regulated by the legislator.
Therefore Item 3.1 of the said Government Resolution
contradicts Part 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution, Part 1 of
Article 499 of the Civil Code and Article 2 of the Law on
Remuneration for Work.
Alongside, it should be noted that wages of a significant
portion of people decreased due to economic difficulties and
inflation, thus the issue of compensation for harmed health
suffered at work is very urgent. However, to resolve issues
linked with compensation of such damage is possible only by
legal regulation. The Government may influence the
aforementioned processes by submitting respective motions to
the legislator, by increasing or indexing minimal remuneration
pursuant to the procedure provided by law but never by
correcting legal norms by its acts.
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 Item 3.1 of the 23 August 1996 Republic
of Lithuania Government Resolution No. 1004 "On increase of
minimal remuneration for work" contradicts Part 2 of Article 30
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as
Part 1 of Article 499 of the Civil Code of the Republic of
Lithuania and Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Remuneration for Work.
This Constitutional Court ruling is final and not subject
to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated on behalf of the Republic of
Lithuania.