Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 620 "On the Procedure for
and the Term of Reorganisation of the Former
Ministry of Construction and Urban Planning,
Ministry of European Affairs, Ministry of
Communications and Informatics as well as Their
Institutions" of 22 May 1998 with the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania, Item 2 of Article
22, and Part 2 of Article 29 of the Law on the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania, Article 1
of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Implementation of the Law on the Amendment to the
Law on the Government and Article 4 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Institutions
Financed from the Budget
Vilnius, 3 June 1999
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Egidijus
Jarašiūnas, Egidijus Kūris, Zigmas Levickis, Augustinas
Normantas, Vladas Pavilonis, Jonas Prapiestis, Vytautas
Sinkevičius, Stasys Stačiokas, and Teodora Staugaitienė,
with the secretary of the hearing-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of:
the representatives of the petitioner-a group of Seimas
members-Algirdas Butkevičius, Česlovas Juršėnas, and Petras
Papovas, all they are Seimas members,
the representatives of the party concerned-the Government
of the Republic of Lithuania-Ramutė Ruškytė, Head of the
Division for Legal Affairs and Law and Order of the Chancery of
the Government, and Edmundas Žilevičius, Vice-Minister of
Finance 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
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Constitutional Court, on 12
May 1999 in its public hearing conducted the investigation of
Case No. 19/98 subsequent to the petition submitted to the
Court by the petitioner-a group of Seimas members-requesting to
investigate if Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 620 "On the Procedure for and the Term of
Reorganisation of the Former Ministry of Construction and Urban
Planning, Ministry of European Affairs, Ministry of
Communications and Informatics as well as Their Institutions"
of 22 May 1998 was in compliance with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, the Law on the Government, the Law on
the Implementation of the Law on the Amendment to the Law on
the Government and the Law on the Institutions Financed from
the Budget.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
On 22 May 1998, the Government adopted Resolution No. 620
"On the Procedure for and the Term of Reorganisation of the
Former Ministry of Construction and Urban Planning, Ministry of
European Affairs, Ministry of Communications and Informatics as
well as Their Institutions" (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
1998, No. 48-1320; hereinafter referred to as the Government
Resolution).
A group of Seimas members appealed to the Constitutional
Court with a petition requesting to investigate whether certain
provisions of the aforesaid resolution were in conformity to
the Constitution and certain laws.
II
The request is grounded on the following motives.
1. The Constitution (Item 8 of Article 67), as well as the
Law on the Government (Articles 22 and 29), mentions only
establishment and abolishment of ministries, meanwhile Item 1
of the Government Resolution, besides, stipulates:
"1. In the course of the reorganisation of the abolished
Ministry of Construction and Urban Planning [
]:
1.5. to form this commission for the implementation of the
reorganisation of the abolished Ministry of Construction and
Urban Planning [
].
1.6. to commission the commission pointed out in Item 1.5
[
] to solve the other questions linked with the reorganisation
of the former Ministry of Construction and Urban Planning."
Analogous provisions are also established in Item 2
(concerning the abolished Ministry of Communications and
Informatics) and Items 5 and 6 (concerning the abolished
Ministry of European Affairs).
It is noted in the petition that the Government Resolution
was adopted in the course of the implementation of Article 2 of
the 28 April 1998 Law on the Implementation of the Law on the
Amendment to the Law on the Government (hereinafter referred to
as the Law on the Implementation of the Law) and implementing
the Seimas Resolution "On Unified Coordination of Measures
Connected with the Integration of Lithuania into the European
Union" which was adopted on the same day. Without disputing
whether the wording "implementing the Seimas Resolution" is to
be considered a correct one, the petitioner maintains that the
said resolution mentions only one ministry ("[
] to establish a
special institution under the Government on the basis of the
reorganised Ministry of European Affairs [
]"). Meanwhile,
under the Law on the Implementation of the Law three ministers
are abolished (Article 1), while the Government is proposed
(Article 2) to establish the procedure for and the term of the
implementation of Article 1, and to establish an institution
under the Government responsible for the solution of questions
connected with the integration of Lithuania into the European
Union.
The procedure for reorganisation of the institutions
financed from the budget (ministries including) is provided for
by the Law on the Institutions Financed from the Budget.
Article 4 of the said law provides: "The Institutions Financed
from the Budget shall be reorganised or liquidated by their
founders under the procedure established by the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania provided the laws do not provide
otherwise." It is established in both the Constitution and the
Law on the Government that the founder of ministries is the
Seimas, however it neither undertook to reorganise the
ministries by itself nor commissioned the Government to do so.
The petitioner points out that under Article 22 of the Law
on the Government, the Government "shall enforce the laws and
the resolutions of the Seimas on implementation of laws". Thus
the Government, by undertaking to reorganise the ministries
abolished by the Seimas, overstepped its powers, therefore
Items 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the Government Resolution contradict
Articles 67 and 94 of the Constitution, the Law on the
Government, the Law on the Implementation of the Law on the
Amendment to the Law on the Government, and the Law on the
Institutions Financed from the Budget.
2. Item 8 of the Government Resolution provides: "The
Ministry of Finance must reapportion the appropriations, which
were previously allotted to the former Ministry of European
Affairs, the Ministry of Communications and Informatics and the
Ministry of Construction and Urban Planning, as well as the
Department of Communal Economy which was formerly under the
Ministry of Construction and Urban Planning, respectively to
the Ministry of Environmental Protection, the Ministry of
Public Administration Reforms and Local Government Affairs, the
European Committee under the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Economy,
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by taking account of the
resolutions of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania
wherein the maximum permissible number of the staff is
established."
The petitioner comes to a conclusion that the Government
by its resolution, i.e. by the substatutory act, changed the
1998 budget law. Meanwhile Article 132 of the Constitution
provides for a different procedure: "During the budget year the
Seimas may change the budget. It shall be changed according to
the same procedure by which it was drafted, adopted and
approved." It means, in particular, that the Government submits
a respective draft law to the Seimas, while the Seimas (and
only the Seimas alone) approves the budget or amends the budget
law.
The petitioner considers that Item 8 of the Government
Resolution contradicts Article 132 of the Constitution and the
Law on the Government.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, an explanation by the
representatives of the party concerned Ramutė Ruškytė, Head of
the Division for Legal Affairs and Law and Order of the
Chancery of the Government, and Edmundas Žilevičius,
Vice-Minister of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania, was
received.
It is maintained in the explanation that, enforcing
Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law and the
Seimas Resolution, the Government redistributed the functions
performed by the former Ministry of European Affairs, the
Ministry of Communications and Informatics and the Ministry of
Construction and Urban Planning among other ministries and
Government institutions. Due to these lawful actions of the
Government respective appropriations of the State budget were
reapportioned. Conforming to the provisions of Article 10 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial
Indices of the 1998 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of
Local Governments, the confirmed funds were respectively
reapportioned, however the total amount of the appropriations
of the State budget remained unchanged. The representatives are
of the opinion that the Government Resolution is in compliance
with the Constitution and the aforementioned laws.
IV
In the course of the judicial investigation the
representative P. Papovas explained that the Seimas established
by itself regarding ways when a ministry will cease to exist,
i.e. that this will be done by way of abolishment but not that
of reorganisation. Under Article 1 of the Law on the
Implementation of the Law three ministries were abolished. It
was provided by Article 2 of the said law that until 1 May the
Government must establish the procedure for the implementation
of Article 1. In the list of ministries established in the Law
on the Government of the new wording there are 14 but not 17
ministries, as 3 ministries have been abolished, or, in other
words, they no longer exist. Meanwhile the Government in its
Resolution, even though it recognises that the ministries are
abolished, reorganises them, i.e. it redistributes their
functions, but under Article 37 of the Civil Code it is
possible to reorganise only existing institutions. The
Government had only to distribute the property and submit a
draft law on the utilisation and reapportionment of budgetary
means, i.e. that on the specification of the 1998 State budget,
to the Seimas. The money was reapportioned by the Seimas,
meanwhile the appropriations to the ministries were allocated
by the Seimas, therefore, under the Constitution, the
appropriations ought to have been changed by the same procedure
as they were allocated.
The representative of the petitioner Č. Juršėnas explained
in the course of the judicial investigation that the Lithuanian
parliament has confronted the question regarding ministries for
many a time, as neither the Constitution nor the Law on the
Government mentions their reorganisation. The parliament has
discussed redistribution of the functions of abolished
ministries for several times. The redistribution was authorised
by laws. In 1994 some ministries were being abolished and the
Seimas considered the question of their reorganisation. By the
law of 12 December 1996 respective ministries were abolished.
The Government did not carry out any reorganisation.
Abolishment commissions were formed, meanwhile, the Government
by its 7 March 1997 resolution redistributed the property.
Thus, there is a precedent already, and this was done by the
same Government whose resolution is being disputed.
Liquidation and abolishment are considered as one and the
same thing. On 10 May 1996, the Government adopted Resolution
No. 554 "On the Approval of the Procedure for Reorganisation
and Liquidation of the Institutions Financed from the Budget".
Under this procedure, the institutions are reorganised when
they are amalgamated, split etc., while they are liquidated
when their all activities are ceased. These are two different
matters which are not singled out in the Government Resolution.
Reorganising the abolished ministries, the Government
overstepped its powers. Under Article 15 of the Law on Public
Organisations, reorganisation is restructuring of a public
organisation as a legal person without the liquidation
procedure. There is not any other interpretation concerning
reorganisation.
The representative of the petitioner asserted that the
budget right is the great right of the parliament determining
the principle of separation of powers. The Government may only
submit a draft budget. After the Seimas has passed a
corresponding law, the Government must enforce it. The law on
the budget is a particular one. By this law particular sums of
appropriations are established which may only be changed by a
decision of the Seimas. In Lithuania there is not delegated
legislation, therefore the Seimas may not transfer its powers
to the Government.
The representative of the petitioner A. Butkevičius
explained in the course of the judicial investigation that Item
8 of the Government Resolution grants the right to the Ministry
of Finance to redistribute the appropriations of the budget,
which were formerly given to the abolished ministries as well
as the Department of Communal Economy, respectively to the
Ministry of Environmental Protection, the Ministry of Public
Administration Reforms and Local Government Affairs, the
Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the
European Committee under the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania. By a substatutory act the government changed the law
on the budget. Thus Article 132 of the Constitution is violated
whereby during the budget year the Seimas may change the
budget. The Government may merely submit a draft law to the
Seimas. It is the Seimas that approves the budget or amends the
law on the budget. Article 17 of the Law on Budgeting also
provides that the Government considers a State draft budget and
submits it to the Seimas by indicating the total amount of
revenues and the apportionment thereof according to the types
of taxes and revenues, as well as the appropriations from the
budget for various institutions and programmes. Thus not only
the total sum of appropriations is established by law but also
the appropriations are distributed through special
appropriations managers. A certain sum from the appropriations
is also allocated to the appropriate manager for maintenance of
the buildings and acquisition of necessary items. Upon
liquidation of a ministry, a sum of appropriations is
transferred to another one, thus part of the expenses are
economised. Therefore, the Government changed the State budget
law by a substatutory act.
V
The petitioner points out in his request that the
Government, by reorganising the abolished ministries by the
said resolution, overstepped its powers.
Taking account of the fact that the petitioner did not
indicate as to which particular norms of the Constitution the
disputed Government Resolution, in his opinion, contradicts the
Constitution, the Constitutional Court will investigate its
compliance with only such norms of the Constitution and the
laws which regulate the relations pointed out in the request of
the petitioner, i.e. the compliance of Items 1, 2, 5, and 6 of
the disputed Government Resolution with Item 8 of Article 67,
Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution, Item 2 of Article 22,
Part 2 of Article 29 of the Law on the Government, Article 1 of
the Law on the Implementation of the Law on the Amendment to
the Law on the Government, and Article 4 of the Law on the
Institutions Financed from the Budget.
VI
In the course of the judicial investigation the
representative of the party concerned R. Ruškytė explained that
Article 4 of the Law on the Institutions Financed from the
Budget provides that the institutions financed from the budget
shall be reorganised or liquidated by their founders under the
procedure established by the Government provided the laws do
not provide otherwise. Due to this the Seimas, on 28 April
1998, passed a special law which provided for a different
procedure. Adopting the law, the Seimas decided not the
question of liquidation or reorganisation of ministries but
that of their abolishment. Therefore the Government could not
violate the Law on the Institutions Financed from the Budget as
far as liquidation is concerned as the Government did not
decide the question of liquidation.
Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law
prescribes that the ministries shall be abolished. Implementing
this law, the Government shall establish the procedure for and
term of its implementation. Under this law the ministries shall
be abolished, meanwhile, the decision as for the ways and
procedure for the performance of this action is commissioned
for the Government. The representative of the party concerned
is of the opinion that this is also confirmed by Item 2 of
Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law wherein
it is particularly pointed out to the Government as to how it
must abolish the Ministry of European Affairs which was
indicated in Article 1 of the said law. It is left for the
Government to adopt decisions as far as the ways of abolishment
of the other two ministries are concerned. The Government
scrupulously followed the Law on the Implementation of the Law
and, as it was conforming to Articles 67 and 94 of the
Constitution, did not violate any law.
According to the representative of the party concerned,
the Civil Code permits to reorganise only an existing legal
person. The notions abolishment of a ministry and
reorganisation have a somewhat different content than in the
case of liquidation of a legal person. Reorganisation is
provided for by the Civil Code. Besides, the norms of private
law ought not to be applied to public relations. The ministries
existed at that time, because the law was adopted on 28 April,
meanwhile the Government was commissioned to establish the
procedure until 1 May. Such terms are unrealistic. Abolishment
is not a single action but a procedure. The functions of a
particular ministry may not cease, i.e. they must be
transferred to other institutions. This process is implemented
consistently, therefore the Seimas commissioned the Government
to do this, as, under Article 94 of the Constitution, the
Government shall administer the affairs of the country.
In the opinion of the representative of the party
concerned, the commission of the Seimas concerning
redistribution of budget appropriations was given because the
functions of the abolished ministries were transferred to
respective ministries. For the latter the sums of
appropriations were increased. The Government was following
Article 94 of the Constitution and was scrupulously enforcing
Item 4 of Article 10 of Law on the Approval of the Financial
Indices of the 1998 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of
Local Governments which grants the right to the Government or
its authorised institution correspondingly to change the
confirmed appropriations. The Government implemented this right
not by changing the budget but performing mere technical
redistribution of confirmed appropriations in the course of the
maintenance of the budget. Passing the 1 December 1998 Law on
the Amendment to and Supplementation of the Budget, the Seimas
approved this redistribution of appropriations.
In the court hearing the representative of the party
concerned E. Žilevičius explained that the appropriations were
redistributed without changing the general limits of the
budget. It is only the procedures of the maintenance of the
budget that were performed. The reorganisation took place for
3-4 months. During this time the sums of budget appropriations
concerning the reorganisation and abolishment of the ministries
were formulated and particularised in the course of
particularisation of the 1998 budget, they were submitted to
the Seimas and the Seimas confirmed them. The Seimas delegated
temporarily its right to the Government, and after that, by
passing the law, approved the sums which were commissioned to
the Ministry of Finance by the Government Resolution.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
On the compliance of Items 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Government
Resolution No. 620 "On the Procedure for and the Term of
Reorganisation of the Former Ministry of Construction and Urban
Planning, Ministry of European Affairs, Ministry of
Communications and Informatics as well as Their Institutions"
of 22 May 1998 with Item 8 of Article 67 and Item 2 of Article
94 of the Constitution, Item 2 of Article 22 and Part 2 of
Article 29 of the Law on the Government, Article 1 of the Law
on the Implementation of the Law on the Amendment to the Law on
the Government and Article 4 of the Law on the Institutions
Financed from the Budget.
1. On 28 April 1998 the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Amendment to the Law on the Government
whereby a new wording of the Law on the Government was set
forth. The Law on the Government went into effect on 1 May
1998. Under the list of ministries established in Part 1 of
Article 29, there shall be 14 ministries in the Republic of
Lithuania (under the previously effective Law on the
Government, there were 17 of them).
On the same day the Law on the Implementation of the Law
on the Amendment to the Law on the Government was adopted. Like
the Law on the Government, it came into force on 1 May 1998.
Under Article 1 of this law, the Ministry of European Affairs,
the Ministry of Communications and Informatics and the Ministry
of Construction and Urban Planning shall be abolished. Article
2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law provides:
"The Government shall:
(1) establish the procedure for the implementation of
Article 1 of this law and its term until 1 May 1998;
(2) instead of the former Ministry of European Affairs,
establish a special institution under the Government
responsible for the solution of questions of the integration of
Lithuania into the European Union."
2. In Resolution No. 620 "On the Procedure for and the
Term of Reorganisation of the Former Ministry of Construction
and Urban Planning, Ministry of European Affairs, Ministry of
Communications and Informatics as well as Their Institutions"
of 22 May 1998, the Government established as to how Article 2
of the Law on the Implementation of the Law and the 28 April
1998 Seimas Resolution "On Unified Coordination of Measures
Connected with the Integration of Lithuania into the European
Union" must be enforced. It is pointed out in the Resolution
that this must be done "in the course of the reorganisation of
the abolished Ministry of Construction and Urban Planning"
(Item 1), "in the course of the reorganisation of the abolished
Ministry of Communications and Informatics" (Item 2), by
establishing "the European Committee under the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania on the basis of the reorganised
Ministry of European Affairs" (Item 5), and "in the course of
the reorganisation of the abolished Ministry of European
Affairs into the European Committee under the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania" (Item 6).
3. Part 1 of Article 5 of the Constitution provides: "In
Lithuania, the powers of the State shall be exercised by the
Seimas, the President of the Republic and the Government, and
the Judiciary." This constitutional norm establishes the
principle of separation of State powers which is later
particularised in the other articles of the Constitution by
determining the competence of every branch of State power as
well as their interrelations.
In its rulings (those of 26 October 1995, 10 January 1998,
21 April 1998 etc.) the Constitutional Court has noted for many
a time that the principle of separation of powers means that
the legislative, executive and judicial powers must be
separated and sufficiently independent, but also there must be
balance between them. Every power is exercised through its
institutions which are empowered with the competence
corresponding their purpose. The particular content of the
competence of the institution depends on its place in the
system of the institutions of power.
After the functions and empowerment of the institutions of
the legislative and executive powers had been established in
the Constitution, their interaction was also provided for. Item
8 of Article 67 of the Constitution contains such a norm: the
Seimas shall "upon the recommendation of the Government,
establish or abolish ministries of the Republic of Lithuania".
These powers, linked with the establishment and abolishment of
ministries, are repeated in Part 2 of Article 29 of the Law on
the Government. Besides, it is provided therein that on the
recommendation of the Government, the ministries shall be
founded and abolished by the Seimas which in this connection
enacts a law. The 28 April 1998 Law on the Implementation of
the Law is precisely of such nature, by Article 1 whereof three
ministries are abolished.
4. Ministries are institutions of State government
enjoying a special competence. By establishing or abolishing
them, one attempts to organise administration in various areas.
A ministry fulfils the functions of State government in the
area attributed to it by the laws and other legal acts and in
this area it exercises State policy. Fulfilling their
functions, ministries inevitably participate not only in
government but also other legal relations of varied nature
(property, labour, etc.). Ministries are legal persons.
In Item 8 of Article 67 of the Constitution the right of
the Seimas is entrenched to establish and abolish ministries.
The implementation of these powers of the Seimas is bound by
the concrete powers of the Government which are enshrined in
the Constitution: in case the Government does not submit a
particular proposal, the Seimas may not adopt a decision
whether to establish or abolish a ministry. Thus, this norm of
the Constitution ensures the balance between the legislative
and executive powers.
5. On 20 April 1998, the Government submitted a draft Law
on the Implementation of the Law on the Amendment to the Law on
the Government (No. 1138(2)). One of the alternatives of
Article 1 of the said draft law was a proposal to abolish three
ministries (the Ministry of European Affairs, the Ministry of
Communications and Informatics, and the Ministry of
Construction and Urban Planning).
Under the list of ministries established in Part 1 of
Article 29 of the 28 April 1998 Law on the Government (of the
new wording) there are 14 ministries in the Republic of
Lithuania. They do not include the Ministry of European
Affairs, the Ministry of Communications and Informatics, and
the Ministry of Construction and Urban Planning which were
abolished by Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the
Law. The aforementioned laws went into effect on 1 May 1998.
Thus from this date the aforesaid ministries were abolished as
institutions of State government.
The Law on the Implementation of the law did not concern
the issues of the continuance or redistribution of the
functions of the abolished ministries to other institutions
save that Item 2 of Article 2 of the said law provided that the
Government must establish an institution under the Government
responsible for the solution of questions of the integration of
Lithuania into the European Union. The law did not regulate the
questions connected with the termination of ministries as legal
persons, either.
Part 10 of Article 29 of the Law on the Government
provides that the objectives, functions and rights of the
ministries shall be established in laws, regulations of the
ministries and governmental resolutions. Regulations of the
ministries shall be confirmed by the Government (Article 8 of
the Law on the Government). As the Law on the Implementation of
the law neither particularly regulated the redistribution of
the functions of the ministries nor did it contain any further
arrangement of the affairs of the abolished ministries, then
the Government, carrying out its competence (Items 1 and 3 of
Article 94 of the Constitution) and implementing the Law on the
Implementation of the Law on the Amendment to the Law on the
Government (Item 1 of Article 2), was empowered to redistribute
the functions of the ministries and regulate the other
relations arising from the fact of the abolishment of the
ministries.
6. The petitioner maintains in his request that the
reorganisation of the abolished ministries contradicts the Law
on the Institutions Financed from the Budget.
On the basis of the source of finance, a ministry is an
institution finance from the budget. Under Article 4 of the Law
on the Institutions Financed from the Budget, the institutions
financed from the budget shall be reorganised or liquidated by
their founders under the procedure established by the
Government provided the laws do not provide otherwise. Item 8
of Article 67 provides that the Seimas shall upon the
recommendation of the Government, establish or abolish
ministries of the Republic of Lithuania. An analogous norm is
that of Part 2 of Article 29 of the Law on the Government.
Thus, the Law on the Institutions Financed from the Budget does
not regulate establishment nor abolishment of ministries,
therefore Items 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the disputed Government
Resolution from the aspect investigated in this case do not
contradict Article 4 of the Law on the Institutions Financed
from the Budget.
7. Enforcing both the Law on the Implementation of the Law
and the Seimas resolution, the Government used the wording "in
the course of reorganisation of the abolished ministry [
]" in
Items 1, 2 and 6 of the Government Resolution, and that "to
establish on the basis of the reorganised ministry [
]" in Item
5 of the same Resolution.
Abolishment of a ministry means that it ceases to exist as
an institution of government. Thus it is impossible to
reorganise an abolished ministry. From the point of view of
legal logic, the combination of legal notions "in the course of
the reorganisation of the abolished [
]" is inappropriate as
both these notions deny each other. Under the law, the
ministries were abolished from 1 May 1998, therefore they could
not be reorganised by a later Government resolution, i.e. that
of 22 May 1998. Due to inappropriate use of notions in legal
acts, legal regulation may become vague. However, it is
possible to decide whether the disputed Government Resolution
ought to be recognised as contradicting the Constitution due to
the inappropriate use of the said notions only after
elucidation of the purpose and content of the adoption of the
aforementioned Government Resolution.
As mentioned, three ministries were abolished by the Law
on the Implementation of the Law. It is established in the
Government Resolution as to what functions are transferred to
the Ministry of Environmental Protection from the Ministry of
Construction and Urban Planning (Item 1.1), as well as those to
the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Public
Administration Reforms and Local Government Affairs from the
Ministry of Communications and Informatics (Items 2.1, 2.2),
those to the European Committee under the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania, the Ministry of Economy, the State
enterprise the State Property Fund from the Ministry of
European Affairs (Items 6.1, 6.3, 6.4). Other relations linked
with the abolishment of the ministries are also regulated by
the Government Resolution. The legal regulation established
therein is in conformity with the purpose of the law to abolish
the ministries as by the said resolution the administrative
functions performed by the abolished ministries were merely
redistributed, as well as the other relations arising form the
abolishment of the ministries were regulated. As mentioned, the
combination of the legal notions "in the course of
reorganisation of the abolished [
]" as used in the Government
Resolution is inappropriate as these notions deny each other,
however, it does not mean that in this case the Government
exceeded its powers conferred by the Constitution and the laws.
On the grounds of the motives set forth, one is to
conclude that Items 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Government of the Republic
of Lithuania Resolution No. 620 "On the Procedure for and the
Term of Reorganisation of the Former Ministry of Construction
and Urban Planning, Ministry of European Affairs, Ministry of
Communications and Informatics as well as Their Institutions"
of 22 May 1998 are in compliance with Item 8 of Article 67 and
Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution, Item 2 of Article 22,
and Part 2 of Article 29 of the Law on the Government, Article
1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on the Amendment
to the Law on the Government and Article 4 of the Law on the
Institutions Financed from the Budget.
II
On the compliance of Item 8 of Government Resolution No.
620 "On the Procedure for and the Term of Reorganisation of the
Former Ministry of Construction and Urban Planning, Ministry of
European Affairs, Ministry of Communications and Informatics as
well as Their Institutions" of 22 May 1998 with Part 2 of
Article 132 of the Constitution and the Law on the Government.
1. Item 8 of the Government Resolution provides: "The
Ministry of Finance must reapportion the appropriations, which
were previously allotted to the former Ministry of European
Affairs, the Ministry of Communications and Informatics and the
Ministry of Construction and Urban Planning, as well as the
Department of Communal Economy which was formerly under the
Ministry of Construction and Urban Planning respectively to the
Ministry of Environmental Protection, the Ministry of Public
Administration Reforms and Local Government Affairs, the
European Committee under the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Economy,
and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by taking account of the
resolutions of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania
wherein the maximum permissible number of the staff is
established."
The petitioner contends that the Government changed the
1998 budget law by the substatutory act, which contradicts
Article 132 of the Constitution and the Law on the Government.
2. Part 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution provides that
the scope of powers shall be defined by the Constitution. This
constitutional principle, besides, means that in cases when the
powers of a concrete branch of power are directly established
in the Constitution, then no institution may take over these
powers, while an institution whose powers are defined by the
Constitution may neither transfer nor refuse these powers. Such
powers may neither be changed nor restricted by the law.
3. Article 11 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Budgeting provides that the State Budget of the Republic of
Lithuania shall be a centralised fund of financial resources
wherein a certain portion of the national revenues of the
Republic shall be accumulated and reapportioned. Financial
resources accumulated in the State Budget are used for
financing various national needs. These needs are listed in
Article 13 of the Law on Budgeting. One of such needs is
maintenance of State power, State government and State
institutions (Item 7 of Article 13). In order that these needs
should be financed, a draft budget must provide for not only
the total amount of appropriations but also the apportionment
thereof for particular ministries (Item 2 of Article 17).
The budgeting process includes the activities of various
State institutions. Article 130 of the Constitution provides:
"The Government of the Republic of Lithuania shall prepare a
draft budget of the State, and shall submit it to the Seimas no
later than 75 days before the end of the budget year." This
competence of the Government is detailed in Item 4 of Article
22 of the Law on the Government whereby the Government shall
"prepare the draft budget of the State and submit it to the
Seimas; execute the State budget and report on the fulfilment
of the budget to the Seimas". Implementing the powers
prescribed by the Constitution and the Law on the Government,
the Government is not only entitled but also obligated to
provide in the draft budget for concrete sums of expenditures
necessary to ensure the administration functions carried out by
the ministries.
Under Item 14 of Article 67 of the Constitution, the
Seimas shall approve the State budget. It does so by passing a
law (Part 1 of Article 131 of the Constitution). Besides, the
Seimas supervises as to how the State budget is implemented.
Thus, under the Constitution it is only the Seimas that is
entitled to approve the State budget. Approving the State
budget by law, the Seimas establishes its revenues and
expenditures.
The Government must implement the approved State budget in
pursuance of its purpose and scopes which have been established
in the budget law. Part 2 of Article 132 of the Constitution
provides: "During the budget year the Seimas may change the
budget. It shall be changed according to the same procedure by
which it was drafted, adopted and approved. As necessary, the
Seimas may approve an additional budget." Thus the Constitution
does not empower the Government to change the budget by itself.
4. The expenditures for the Ministry of European Affairs,
the Ministry of Communications and Informatics, the Ministry of
Construction and Urban Planning were approved in individual
clauses of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 1998 State Budget and Those of the
Budgets of Local Governments. In addition, particular managers
of the appropriations of the State budget were pointed out
therein. As mentioned, it is only the Seimas that may change
the budget, and only according to the same procedure by which
it was drafted, adopted and approved. Therefore only the Seimas
was entitled to change the size of the appropriations allocated
to the abolished Ministry of the European Affairs, Ministry of
Communications and Informatics and Ministry of Construction and
Urban Planning and it was only possible to do so by passing a
law changing the law whereby the budget had been approved.
Under the Constitution, such a draft amendment to the budget is
submitted to the Seimas by the Government.
However, according to Item 8 of the disputed Government
Resolution, the Government itself commissioned the Ministry of
Finance to redistribute the appropriations of the State budget
allocated to the former Ministry of European Affairs, Ministry
of Communications and Informatics, Ministry of Construction and
Urban Planning respectively to the Ministry of Environmental
Protection, the Ministry of Public Administration Reforms and
Local Government Affairs, the Ministry of Transport, the
Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the
European Committee under the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania. Alongside, the Government changed the sums of the
appropriations and their managers that had been confirmed by
the law. Thus the Government overstepped its powers defined by
the Constitution in the area of the budget.
On the grounds of the motives set forth, it is to be
concluded that Item 8 of Government Resolution No. 620 "On the
Procedure for and the Term of Reorganisation of the Former
Ministry of Construction and Urban Planning, Ministry of
European Affairs, Ministry of Communications and Informatics as
well as Their Institutions" of 22 May 1998 contradicts Part 2
of Article 132 of the Constitution.
Having stated that Item 8 of the disputed Government
Resolution contradicts the Constitution, the Constitutional
Court will not investigate the conformity of Item 8 of the said
Government Resolution with the Law on the Government in this
case.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Articles 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Constitutional Court, the
Constitutional Court has passed the following
ruling:
1. To recognise that Items 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 620 "On the Procedure
for and the Term of Reorganisation of the Former Ministry of
Construction and Urban Planning, Ministry of European Affairs,
Ministry of Communications and Informatics as well as Their
Institutions" of 22 May 1998 are in compliance with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Item 2 of Article
22, and Part 2 of Article 29 of the Law on the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania, Article 1 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Implementation of the Law on the Amendment
to the Law on the Government and Article 4 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Institutions Financed from the Budget.
2. To recognise that Item 8 of Government of the Republic
of Lithuania Resolution No. 620 "On the Procedure for and the
Term of Reorganisation of the Former Ministry of Construction
and Urban Planning, Ministry of European Affairs, Ministry of
Communications and Informatics as well as Their Institutions"
of 22 May 1998 contradicts Part 2 of Article 132 of 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.