Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of Part 3 of Article 476 of the
Republic of Lithuania Code of Civil Proceedings
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
Vilnius, 24 September 1998
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Judges 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-Sigutė Brusovienė,
the party concerned-Jurgis Orlauskas, a senior consultant
at the Legal Division of the Chancery of the Seimas, the
representative of the Seimas 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, on 7
September 1998 in its public hearing conducted the
investigation of Case No. 1/98 subsequent to the petition
submitted to the Court by the petitioner-the Alytus Regional
District Court-requesting to investigate if Part 3 of Article
476 of the Republic of Lithuania Code of Civil Proceedings was
in conformity to Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
The Alytus Regional District Court, by its decision of 5
January 1996, partially satisfied a claim and recognised that
the plaintiff had been dismissed from the joint-stock company
Stalių gaminiai unlawfully, and adjudged compensation to her.
On 21 March 1996, the College of Civil Cases of the Kaunas
Regional Court satisfied the appeal of the plaintiff and
increased the compensation that was to be paid to her.
By its ruling of 13 January 1997, the College of Civil
Cases Department of the Supreme Court of Lithuania satisfied
the appeal of the joint-stock company Stalių gaminiai and
repealed the decision of the Alytus Regional District Court and
the ruling of the College of Civil Cases of the Kaunas Regional
Court, and rejected the claim.
On 10 December 1997, conducting the investigation in the
civil case subsequent to the claim of the joint-stock company
Stalių gaminiai regarding the recovery of unlawfully acquired
property, the Alytus Regional District Court ruled to suspend
the case and appeal to the Constitutional Court with the
petition requesting to investigate whether Part 3 of Article
476 of the Code of Civil Proceedings (hereinafter referred to
as the CCP) (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, No. 93-1809,
1994) was in compliance with Article 23 of the Constitution.
II
The petitioner grounds its request on these arguments.
By the ruling of the College of Civil Cases Department of
the Supreme Court of Lithuania the grounds upon which the
plaintiff had received the sum of money from the joint-stock
company Stalių gaminiai were repealed. Under Part 3 of Article
476 of the CCP, after one has, under cassation procedure,
repealed decisions regarding recovery of sums of money pursuant
to the requirements arising from legal labour relations,
reversal of their implementation shall be permitted only in the
case that the repealed decision was based on the false evidence
given by the plaintiff or forged documents presented by the
latter. The petitioner points out that Article 23 of the
Constitution promulgates that property shall be inviolable.
Therefore the joint-stock company Stalių gaminiai is deprived
of the opportunity to protect its property.
III
In the course of preparation of the case for judicial
investigation, an explanation of the specialist V. Nekrošius,
an adviser at the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of
Lithuania on issues of civil law and proceedings, was received.
It is maintained therein that the principle of inviolability of
property is entrenched in Article 23 of the Constitution. The
specialist noted that in civil law there exist 2 notions which
are linked with seizure of property, i.e. seizure of property
and the establishment of the limits on realisation of the right
of ownership. Article 28 of the Constitution indicates that
while exercising their rights and freedoms, persons must
observe the Constitution and the laws of the Republic of
Lithuania, and must not impair the rights and interests of
other people. This norm establishes certain limits on the
behaviour. The right of ownership constitutes no exception to
it, either. Both in the history of the institution of the right
of ownership and today's practice one faces quite a few
restrictions with regard to the limits of realisation of the
right of ownership (e.g. acquisitive prescription, easements).
Part 3 of Article 476 of the CCP also ought to be linked with
the scope of the limits of realisation of the right of
ownership but not with seizure of property. This limitation is
conditioned by the necessity to ensure the stability of the
position of the party to the pleadings (employee) who is weaker
from social standpoint, as well as peculiarities of the CCP.
The second reason is particularly important as Article 361 of
the CCP provides for an opportunity of appeal, while Items 9-12
of Part 1 of Article 3713 of the CCP provide for a possibility
to lodge an appeal after new circumstances come to light. Thus
there is a possibility that an effective decision may be
repealed in 10 or 20 years' time. The reversal of the
enforcement of the decision in the cases provided for by Part 3
of Article 476 would, under such conditions, damage the
stability of court decisions and would limit the opportunity of
employees to dispose of the sums adjudged to them. Therefore
the abolition of this norm may be discussed only in case
respective amendments of the CCP are made so that they might
limit an opportunity to appeal against an effective court
decision while leaving a possibility to do so during a
comparatively short time period.
IV
In the course of preparation of the case for judicial
investigation, an explanation of the specialist T. Birmontienė,
Director of the Lithuanian Centre for Human Rights, was
received. She maintains that the restriction of reversal of
implementation of the decisions as provided for by Part 3 of
Article 476 of the CCP (reversal shall be permitted only in the
case that the repealed decision was based on the false evidence
given by the plaintiff or forged documents presented by the
latter), especially in the cases at law regarding recovery of
sums of money pursuant to the requirements arising form labour
relations, as well as recovery of damages caused by the fact of
crippling or other damage of health is just from the standpoint
of social policy and may be recognised as being in conformity
with the interests of society. In the opinion of the
specialist, when one seeks the balance of interests, the said
provision ought to be corrected.
V
In the court hearing Jurgis Orlauskas, a senior consultant
at the Legal Division of the Chancery of the Seimas, the
representative of the party concerned, explained that, in his
opinion, the sum of money was recovered from the joint-stock
company Stalių gaminiai on the grounds of the effective court
decision.
In the opinion of the representative of the party
concerned, because of the norm of Part 3 of Article 476 of the
CCP the respondent may not get back its means which were
recovered from it pursuant to the effective court decision,
even though this decision regarding the recovery of the sum of
money was later repealed. Formerly, the responsibility for the
effects of the effective decisions and which had been repealed
under cassation procedure used to be taken by the State.
The representative of the party concerned is of the
opinion that in order to secure the interests of the respondent
one has to fill the gap of legal regulation.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. Part 3 of Article 476 of the CCP provides: "In the case
that one has, under cassation procedure, repealed decisions in
the legal cases concerning recovery of sums of money pursuant
to the requirements arising from legal labour relations, as
well as recovery of royalties for literary, scientific or art
work, payment for a discovery or invention, for which an
authorship certificate has been issued, as well as exaction of
alimony, as well as recovery of damages caused by crippling or
damaging health otherwise, or deprivation of the life of the
breadwinner, reversal of the implementation of the said
decisions shall be permitted only in the case that the repealed
decision was based on the false evidence given by the plaintiff
or forged documents presented by the latter."
The petitioner doubted whether the part of the norm of
Part 3 of Article 476 of the CCP whereby in the case that one
has, under cassation procedure, repealed decisions in the legal
cases concerning recovery of sums of money pursuant to the
requirements arising from legal labour relations, reversal of
the implementation of the said decisions shall be permitted
only in the case that the repealed decision was based on the
false evidence given by the plaintiff or forged documents
presented by the latter, was in conformity to Article 23 of the
Constitution promulgating that property shall be inviolable, as
in the said case the respondent is deprived of the possibility
to get back his property.
2. Article 23 of the Constitution provides:
"Property shall be inviolable.
The rights of ownership shall be protected by law.
Property may only be seized for the needs of society
according to the procedure established by law and must be
adequately compensated for."
These norms, which constitute an indivisible whole,
guarantee the protection of the rights of ownership. The
inviolability of property as established by the Constitution
obligates other subjects not to violate the rights of the
owner. The State must protect and safeguard property from
encroachment upon it.
In Part 2 of the aforesaid article of the Constitution the
legal protection of the right of ownership is established. This
norm of the Constitution also conditions the fact that in order
to protect property a system of laws is created which has to
ensure the protection of various and dynamic ownership
relations. The main objective of creation of such a system of
laws is harmonisation of the legal norms designated for such a
protection, as well as elimination of possible contradictions
in the protection of the rights of ownership. Alongside, it is
to be noted that one may not treat the rights of ownership
unconditionally. Unconditional treatment of the rights of
ownership would create pre-conditions to violate the rights of
other persons or other values protected by the Constitution.
The objective of the legal regulation is to harmonise fairly
important interests, to ensure their balance and, along with
that, to establish sufficient limits on the protection of the
rights of ownership.
The norm of Part 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution,
which provides that property may only be seized for the needs
of society according to the procedure established by law and
must be adequately compensated for is a logical continuation of
the aforementioned norms.
3. Civil proceedings do not terminate after adoption of a
court decision or accomplishment of the investigation of a
cassation case. In a particular case at law civil proceedings
reach their aim only after one has enforced the decision
adopted by the court. Providing the court decision is not
implemented of one's own free will, coercive measures of
enforcement of the court decision as provided for by the CCP
are applied.
In cases and procedure provided for by the law, the
effective court decision may be repealed. In such a case there
arises the question of reinstatement of the parties to the
pleadings into the legal situation which had been before the
enforcement of the court decision. Part 1 of Article 474 of the
CCP provides that provided an effective court decision shall be
repealed and, after investigating the case anew, one adopts a
decision to reject the claim or a ruling is passed to dismiss
the case or to leave the claim not investigated, the respondent
must be given back everything that has been recovered from him
in favour of the plaintiff. This is referred to as reversal of
the enforcement of a court decision. Provided there is not any
opportunity to return the said property, the court in its
decision or ruling is to indicate that the value of this
property must be compensated, and in cases when the property
has been realised, it must indicate the sum which was acquired
after its realisation and which is to be compensated.
In addition, the respondent is also entitled to claim that
the recoverer compensated damages which appeared after the
prompt enforcement of the court decision which later was
repealed in the case that the prompt enforcement was granted on
the request of the recoverer.
The CCP establishes several fundamentals of reversal of
the enforcement of the decision: repeal under appeal or
cassation procedure of the enforced decision and dismissal of
the case; repeal of the enforced court decision and leaving the
claim not investigated; repeal of the enforced court decision
and adoption of a new decision whereby the claim is not
satisfied.
In certain categories of civil cases, however, there are
established restrictions on reversal of enforcement of court
decisions. Such restrictions are also prescribed in Part 3 of
Article 476 of the CCP wherein the disputed part of the norm is
set forth and which provides that in the case that one has,
under cassation procedure, repealed decisions in the legal
cases concerning recovery of sums of money pursuant to the
requirements arising from legal labour relations, reversal of
the implementation of the said decisions shall be permitted
only in the case that the repealed decision was based on the
false evidence given by the plaintiff or forged documents
presented by the latter.
The purpose of procedural norms is to ensure the
implementation of the norms of substantive law. Therefore, in
order to better comprehend the meaning of one or another rule
of the proceedings, one has to elucidate the peculiarities of
the norms of substantive law that are linked with the former.
The disputed procedural norm is linked with the area of the
legal regulation of labour relations. Thus, in shedding light
to the question of the compliance of the restriction with the
Constitution, one has to take account of the peculiarities of
the legal regulation of labour relations.
4. Chapter IV of the Constitution entitled National
Economy and Labour not only consolidates freedom of individual
economic activity and the right to private ownership on which
the economy of this country is based but also establishes
regulation of economic activity so that it may serve the
general welfare of the people. In the norms of this chapter,
economic and social areas are not set off against but
supplement each other. Therefore it is not by accident that the
fundamentals of the protection of human labour rights are
entrenched in the Constitution. For instance, Article 48 of the
Constitution prescribes that every person may freely choose an
occupation or business, and shall have the right to adequate,
safe and healthy working conditions, adequate compensation for
work, and social security in the event of unemployment. Article
49 of the Constitution guarantees that every person shall have
the right to rest and leisure, as well as to annual paid
holidays. It is provided for therein that working hours shall
be established by law. Other norms of the Constitution provide
for ways of protection of economic and social interests of
employees, social assistance is secured etc.
It is possible to assert that human labour rights as
established in the Constitution constitute an integral group
which is part of the constitutional status of an individual. In
the Constitution a working individual is treated from the
humanistic standpoint. The individual is understood not as an
abstract social, economic or professional category or a
participant of the relations of production but as a free
personality the human dignity of whom ought to be protected.
The parties of labour relations are the employee and the
employer. These are subjects who are different in respect to
their rights and duties. The duty of the State is to ensure
co-operation between the subjects of labour relations on the
grounds of social partnership and to protect the rights of the
employee as he is, as a rule, from the economic and social
standpoint, the weaker party. The system of values which is
established in the Constitution conditions that the legal norms
regulating labour relations and the areas linked with them must
not only provide for the protection of the employee in the
process of work but also ensure a whole spectrum of the
guarantees of rights of a working individual in attempt to
avoid groundless domination of one party of labour relations
and dependency of the other party. It is to be noted that it is
these aims which determine the legal regulation of labour
relations.
The following principles are characteristic of the legal
regulation of labour relations: the equality of the parties of
a labour contract; establishment of supplementary guarantees in
respect of most violable groups of citizens; prohibition to
unilaterally amend the conditions which have been agreed upon
by the parties; the right of the employee to cancel the work
contract under the procedure established by laws; an
opportunity for the employer to cancel the work contract only
pursuant to the fundamentals established by laws; the equality
of rights of employees irrespective of their sex, race,
nationality, citizenship, political views, attitude towards
religion and other circumstances which are not linked with the
performance characteristics of employees.
In attempt to ensure the balance between the employer and
employee, in labour relations certain guarantees are
established for the employees which may not be diminished by
the parties in their agreement. These are: a minimal
remuneration for work, compensation for idle time in cases
provided for by the law, retirement benefits, strict regulation
of cancelling of labour contract on the initiative of the
employer etc. The implementation of these measures provided for
by the law is linked with certain expenses of the employer.
These measures are, however, necessary in order to protect the
social needs of the employee.
Both sufficient protection of the property interests of
the employer and protection of the labour rights of the
employee are necessary pre-conditions for normal economic
activity in a modern society. The legislator must harmonise
different interests and ensure the balance of constitutional
values. Therefore the compliance of the restriction of reversal
of enforced decisions in the cases concerning recovery of sums
of money pursuant to the requirements arising from legal labour
relations as established by the Code of Civil Proceedings with
the Constitution is to be assessed while taking account of the
relation of the aforesaid constitutional values.
5. In deciding the constitutionality issue of the disputed
norm, one should take into consideration its place in civil
proceedings. As mentioned, the restriction of reversal of the
enforced decision as established by this norm is linked with
repeal of the enforced decision in cassation proceedings.
Coming into effect of a court decision causes certain
legal effects. The effective court decision becomes mandatory
to all state institutions or officials, all natural persons,
enterprises, offices and organisations, and it must be
implemented on the entire territory of the country.
Court decisions are implemented after they have taken
effect with the exception of the cases when they are
implemented promptly. Its is the effective decision that
becomes a document to be accomplished and after that it is
enforced. Provided the debtor does not voluntarily fulfil an
effective decision, the procedure of coercive enforcement is
instituted.
The sums of money which are recovered by way of enforcing
of effective decisions pursuant to the requirements arising
from labour relations are, as a rule, used for subsistence in
cases when the respondent is an employee. Remuneration for work
is the main and often the only source of subsistence for the
employee and his/her dependants. Therefore, the stability of
court decision becomes of utmost importance in this sphere.
6. The part of the norm of Part 3 of Article 476 of the
CCP whereby reversal of decisions in the cases concerning
recovery of sums of money pursuant to the requirements arising
from legal labour relations is restricted concerns the area of
ownership relations. The legal system of the Republic of
Lithuania protects the rights of ownership. The nature of
constitutional values, with which property law is confronted,
determines concrete limits of the protection. In establishing
them, one has to take account of the relation of the clashing
values. These limits are not the same in every case. It is
important that the legislator, in establishing them, should not
restrict them so that it would become impossible to implement
them.
The interaction between the entirety of constitutional
labour rights which ensure human dignity and the rights of
ownership not only determine the direct legal regulation of the
relations between the employer and the employee but also
condition the norms of civil proceedings which are linked with
these relations. It is to be noted that the norms of the CCP
permit reversal of the enforced court decision when the
interests of the respondent are being protected. This is a
common rule. Such reversal is limited only in exceptional cases
in the legal cases arising from legal labour relations,
concerning exaction of alimony, as well as recovery of damages
caused by crippling or damaging health otherwise, or
deprivation of the life of the breadwinner etc., with the
exception of cases when the repealed decision was based on the
false evidence given by the plaintiff or forged documents
presented by the latter. Such limitations are conditioned by
the necessity to protect the vital interests of the individual.
The fact that the legislator seeks to protect only the most
important interests of the plaintiff also confirms that after
one has established ill will of the plaintiff, i.e. provided
the repealed decision was based on the false evidence given by
the plaintiff or forged documents presented by the latter,
reversal of the repealed decision is permitted in the cases of
this category, too.
The disputed part of the norm of Part 3 of Article 476 of
the CCP only reflects the interaction of the said 2
constitutional values. In this particular case the legislator
gave priority to the protection of the rights of the employee
which are linked with human dignity. It is to be noted that
this norm in itself should not be assessed as a hindrance for
the employer to protect his property interests. It does not
regulate this issue. Therefore there is no reason to maintain
that this part of the norm is not in line with Article 23 of
the Constitution.
Alongside, one should not forget the historical context of
the enactment of the disputed norm. Under the conditions of the
prevailing state ownership, from the standpoint of the
protection of this ownership it was not of much importance
whether the legal situation provided for in Part 3 of Article
476 of the CCP occurred due to the actions of the state
institutions which were settling the disputes or those of the
administration of enterprises, offices or organisations. Under
the conditions of market economy which is based on private
ownership, the property interests of the private owner should
not suffer due to different decisions of judicial institutions.
Meanwhile, in the valid legal system these relations have not
been fully legally regulated. The elimination of gaps in laws
is a prerogative of the legislator.
Taking account of the motives and arguments set forth, one
is to conclude that the disputed part of the norm of Part 3 of
Article 476 of the CCP is in compliance with 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 part of the norm of Part 3 of
Article 476 of the Republic of Lithuania Code of Civil
Proceedings, wherein it is established that in the case that
one has, under cassation procedure, repealed decisions
regarding recovery of sums of money pursuant to the
requirements arising from legal labour relations, reversal of
the implementation of the said decisions shall be permitted
only in the case that the repealed decision was based on the
false evidence of the plaintiff or forged documents presented
by the latter, 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.