Lietuviškai
Case No. 14/96
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
D E C I S I O N
On the petition requesting interpretation of the
20 January 1997 ruling of the Constitutional Court
of the Republic of Lithuania
9 April 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 party concerned - 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,
pursuant to Article 61 of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on the Constitutional Court, in its public hearing
investigated a petition of the party concerned - the
representatives of the Government - requesting interpretation
of the 20 January 1997 ruling of the Constitutional Court "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".
The Constitutional Court
has established:
On 20 January 1997 the Constitutional Court passed a
ruling wherein it was recognised that Item 3.1 of the 23 August
1996 Republic of Lithuania Government Resolution No. 1004 "On
Increase of Minimal Remuneration for Work" contradicted 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. The representatives of
the party concerned request in their petition of 19 February
1997 to interpret certain questions which arose to them in
connection with the said ruling.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. The representatives of the party concerned request to
interpret whether Item 3.2 of the disputed Government
resolution became voided after Item 3.1 of the said resolution
had been recognised contradicting 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.
The Constitutional Court notes that the issue of legality
of Item 3.2 of the disputed resolution was not investigated in
the case in question as the petitioner had not submitted any
respective petition as regards this problem.
Alongside, it should be noted that the Government adopted
the 17 March 1997 Resolution No. 288 "On Recognition of Items
3, 3.1 and 3.2 of the 23 August 1996 Republic of Lithuania
Government Resolution No. 1004 "On Increase of Minimal
Remuneration for Work" as Being Voided" whereby it recognised
that Items 3, 3.1 and 3.2 of the disputed resolution were
voided (Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios" No. 25-573, 1997).
2. The representatives of the party concerned request to
interpret as to the application of the conclusion drawn in the
holding part of the ruling 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".
The Constitutional Court points out that the conclusion in
question of the Constitutional Court is based on the norm of
Part 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Remuneration for Work
stipulating that "an employee's hourly remuneration (monthly
salary) may not be less than the minimum hourly remuneration
(monthly salary) established by the State". Thus the
representatives of the party concerned request to interpret
matters concerning application of the legal norm. However,
applying legal norms, their interpretation is a prerogative of
institutions which apply the said norms, as well as that of
courts.
3. The representatives of the party concerned request to
interpret as to the application of Article 72 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court after promulgation of the 20 January 1997
ruling of the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court notes that Article 72 of the
aforesaid law was not subject of investigation of the case in
question, therefore it may not be interpreted.
4. In view of the motives set forth, the petition of the
party concerned requesting to interpret certain questions in
connection with the ruling in question of the Constitutional
Court is to be declined.
Conforming to Article 61 of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court
has adopted the following
decision:
To refuse to interpret the 20 January 1997 ruling of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court:
Egidijus Jarašiūnas
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zigmas Levickis
Augustinas Normantas
Vladas Pavilonis
Jonas Prapiestis
Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius
Teodora Staugaitienė
Juozas Žilys