Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of Part 1 of Article 13 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Working
Conditions of Members of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania
Vilnius, 9 November 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-Rimantas Smetona, a Seimas member,
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 27
October 1999 in its public hearing conducted the investigation
of Case No. 15/98 subsequent to the petition submitted to the
Court by the petitioner-a group of Seimas members-requesting to
investigate if Part 1 of Article 13 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Working Conditions of Members of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania was in compliance with
Articles 59 and 60 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
On 26 March 1998, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Working Conditions of Members of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 1996, No. 71-1710; 1998, No. 34-900; hereinafter
referred to as the Law), Part 1 of Article 13 whereof provides:
"Every Seimas member shall be paid a monthly basic salary of
the prior month triple size average salary (AS) in the
Lithuanian economy which is publicised by the Statistics
Department under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania,
and every Seimas member who is appointed Prime Minister or a
minister shall be paid a salary of the size of one AS."
A group of Seimas members appealed to the Constitutional
Court with a petition requesting to investigate whether Article
13 of the Law was in compliance with Articles 59 and 60 of the
Constitution.
II
The request of the petitioner is based on the following
arguments.
Article 13 of the Law provides that every Seimas member
who is appointed Prime Minister or a minister shall be paid a
monthly salary of the size of one average salary (AS), while
other Seimas members shall be paid a salary of the triple size
average salary. Under Article 13 of the Law on the Government,
the salary of the Prime Minister and other ministers is
established regardless of the fact whether they are Seimas
members or not. Thus, the Seimas member who is appointed Prime
Minister or a minister receives two salaries: that of a member
of the Government and a reduced one of the Seimas member.
The petitioner points out that by Article 60 of the
Constitution a Seimas member may be appointed only as Prime
Minister or a minister. It is also established in the same
article that "a Seimas member may not receive any other salary,
with the exception of payment for creative activities". The
salary of a Seimas member for the work of Prime Minister or
that of a minister is not to be held payment for creative
activities. In the opinion of the petitioner, the provision of
Article 13 of the Law concerning the double salary of the
Seimas members who are members of the Government contradicts
Part 3 of Article 60 of the Constitution.
The petitioner maintains that Article 13 of the Law also
contradicts the principle of equality of Seimas members which
is established in Article 59 of the Constitution wherein it is
provided: "In office, Seimas members shall act in accordance
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the
interests of the State, as well as their own consciences, and
may not be restricted by any mandates." Thus all Seimas members
ought to receive the same salary, while on the grounds of the
disputed provision of Article 13 of the Law the salary of some
Seimas members is decreased three times.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
judicial investigation the representative of the party
concerned R. Kalkys, a senior consultant to the Seimas Public
Administration Reforms and Local Government Affairs Committee,
presented to the Constitutional Court hearing the following
explanations in writing.
Part 1 of Article 13 of the Law is in compliance with Part
3 of Article 60 of the Constitution prohibiting a Seimas member
to receive any other salary, with the exception of payment for
creative activities. The assertion of the petitioner that the
Seimas member who is appointed Prime Minister or a minister
receives two salaries may be based not on Article 13 of the Law
but Article 13 of the Law on the Government wherein the salary
of members of the Government is established irrespective of
whether they are Seimas members or not.
According to the representative of the party concerned,
the provision of Article 13 of the Law under which a Seimas
member who is appointed Prime Minister or a minister shall be
paid a monthly salary of the size of one AS is in compliance
with Article 59 of the Constitution. The provision of this
article that "in office, Seimas members shall act in accordance
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the
interests of the State, as well as their own consciences, and
may not be restricted by any mandates" is not linked with
Article 13 of the Law.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
judicial investigation explanations by S. Kaktys, Minister of
Administration Reforms and Local Government Affairs, R.
Ruškytė, Head of the Division of Legal Affairs and Law and
Order of the Chancery of the Government, J. Aleksaitė, Director
of the Law Department of the Ministry of Justice, Assoc. Prof.
Dr. T. Birmontienė, Director of the Lithuanian Centre for Human
Rights, as well as the specialists Prof. Dr. I. Nekrošius, Head
of the Labour Law Department of the Law Faculty of Vilnius
University, Dr. E. Šileikis who works as a senior assistant at
the Department of State Law of the same faculty of Vilnius
University, were received wherein it is maintained that Part 1
of Article 13 of the Law is in compliance with the
Constitution.
V
In the Constitutional Court hearing the representative of
the petitioner R. Smetona virtually reiterated the arguments
set forth in the petition and particularised them.
The specialists Prof. Dr. I. Nekrošius and Dr. E. Šileikis
virtually reiterated the explanations presented in writing.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. According to the petitioner, Article 13 of the Law
contradicts Articles 59 and 60 of the Constitution.
Taking account of the motives set down in the request of
the petitioner, the Constitutional Court will investigate the
compliance of Part 1 of Article 13 of the Law with Part 4 of
Article 59 and Part 3 of Article 60 of the Constitution.
2. In the opinion of the petitioner, Part 1 of Article 13
of the Law whereby a Seimas member who is appointed Prime
Minister or a minister receives the salary of a member of the
Government along with a salary of the Seimas member the size of
which is one AS contradicts Part 3 of Article 60 of the
Constitution which provides that the service of a Seimas member
shall be remunerated, and all expenses incurred from
parliamentary activities shall be reimbursed with funds from
the state budget and that a Seimas member may not receive any
other salary, with the exception of payment for creative
activities.
3. Members of the Seimas are representatives of the People
through whom the People implement their supreme sovereign power
(Part 1 of Article 55 and Article 4 of the Constitution).
Seimas members will only be capable of performing the functions
of the representatives of the People properly when they are
free and independent. One of the main guarantees of free and
independent activity of a Seimas member is the fact that under
Part 3 of Article 60 of the Constitution the services of the
Seimas member and all expenses incurred from parliamentary
activities shall be reimbursed with funds from the state
budget. The same article also provides that a Seimas member may
not receive any other salary, with the exception of payment for
creative activities. These constitutional provisions presuppose
the fact that the salary of a Seimas member must be of
sufficient size, paid regularly, as well as the fact that it is
not permitted that during the term of office of the Seimas the
salary of a Seimas member is decreased from what it was at the
beginning of Seimas' term of office by establishing it by law.
Such constitutional regulation of the salary of a Seimas member
is established so that a Seimas member might properly perform
his duties of the representative of the People.
4. As mentioned, the petitioner grounds his doubts as
regards the compliance of Part 1 of Article 13 of the Law with
the Constitution on the provision of Part 3 of Article 60 of
the Constitution that a Seimas member may not receive any other
salary, with the exception of payment for creative activities.
It needs to be noted that the bases for the establishment
of the salary of a Seimas member are set down not only in Part
3 of Article 60 of the Constitution but also in other parts of
this article as well. In the case at issue it is also important
to establish the relation between the norms of Articles 60 and
99 of the Constitution.
In the legal theory various methods of interpretation of
law are known: linguistic, systematic, historical, comparative
etc. The Constitutional Court has noted for many a time that in
the course of disclosure of the content of legal norms, as a
rule, the application of the linguistic method is not enough.
The Constitution is an integral act (Part 1 of Article 6 of the
Constitution). The norms laid down in the Constitution are
harmonised with each other and constitute a whole. Therefore,
deciding whether the disputed norm of Part 1 of Article 13 of
the Law is in compliance with the Constitution, the
Constitutional Court will apply the systematic method of
interpretation, too.
5. Article 60 of the Constitution provides:
"The duties of Seimas members, with the exception of their
duties in the Seimas, shall be incompatible with any other
duties in State institutions or organisations, as well as with
work in trade, commercial and other private institutions or
enterprises. For term of office, Seimas members shall be exempt
from the duty to perform national defence service.
A Seimas member may be appointed only as Prime Minister or
Minister.
The service of a Seimas member shall be remunerated, and
all expenses incurred from parliamentary activities shall be
reimbursed with funds from the State budget. A Seimas member
may not receive any other salary, with the exception of payment
for creative activities.
The duties, rights and guarantees of the activities of
Seimas members shall be established by law."
Thus, it is established in Part 1 of Article 60 that
Seimas members are prohibited from holding any other office in
State institutions or organisations, as well as working in
trade, commercial and other private institutions or
enterprises. Part 2 of the said article provides for an
exception to the restrictions laid down in Part 1 thereof: a
Seimas member may be appointed only as Prime Minister or a
minister. The norm worded in Part 2 of Article 60 of the
Constitution is a special norm in respect with the common norm
formulated in Part 1 of this article.
The constitutional right of a Seimas member to work as
Prime Minister or a minister presupposes the right to receive a
salary for this work. This is confirmed by Article 99 of the
Constitution wherein it is established that the Prime Minister
and ministers receive a salary for their work in the
Government. Part 4 of Article 60 of the Constitution provides
that the guarantees of the activities of Seimas members,
consequently, their salaries as well, shall be established by
law.
Assessing the relation of Parts 1, 2 and the other parts
of Article 60 of the Constitution systematically, as well as
the relation of this article with Article 99 of the
Constitution, one is to draw a conclusion that for the Seimas
member who is appointed either Prime Minister or a minister a
different salary may be established for his activities as a
Seimas member.
The Seimas, under the Constitution enjoying discretion to
establish by law a different salary to the Seimas member
appointed Prime Minister or a minister for his work as a Seimas
member from that paid to the other Seimas members, is bound by
the constitutional principles of the state under the rule of
law. Thus, in this case, too, the salary of the Seimas member
must be of sufficient size so that the Seimas member might
perform his duty as a representative of the People.
Thus Part 1 of Article 13 of the Law whereby the salary
for the activity of Seimas member to the Seimas member
appointed Prime Minister or a minister is different from that
paid to the other Seimas members is in compliance with Article
60 of the Constitution.
6. The petitioner is of the opinion that the principle of
equality of all Seimas members is established in Part 4 of
Article 59 of the Constitution, therefore all Seimas members
ought to receive the same salary for their work. On the grounds
of this constitutional provision, the petitioner maintains that
the provision of Part 1 of Article 13 of the Law whereby the
Seimas member appointed Prime Minister or a minister receives a
salary the size whereof is three times as little as that paid
to the other Seimas members contradicts Part 4 of Article 59 of
the Constitution.
Part 4 of Article 59 of the Constitution reads: "In
office, Seimas members shall act in accordance with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the interests of the
State, as well as their own consciences, and may not be
restricted by any mandates." In this constitutional provision
an unrestricted mandate of a Seimas member is established. The
essence of an unrestricted mandate lies in the freedom of a
People's representative to implement the rights and duties
vested in him without restricting this freedom by any mandates,
political requirements of parties and organisations that
nominated him, and without recognising the right to revoke a
Seimas member. It means that an imperative mandate is not
recognised by the Constitution (Constitutional Court ruling of
26 November 1993). Thus the purpose of Part 4 of Article 59 of
the Constitution is consolidation of an unrestricted mandate of
a Seimas member as one of the guarantees of independence and
equality of rights of Seimas members.
The equality of rights of Seimas members derives from the
whole-complex of the articles of the Constitution: Article 55
provides that Seimas members are representatives of the People;
Article 62 provides for the same immunity of Seimas members;
Article 63 provides for the same bases for termination of the
powers of Seimas members; Article 69 establishes that all
Seimas members are equal when they adopt laws. The equality of
rights of Seimas members is also established in the other
articles of the Constitution.
As noted above, one of the main guarantees of activity of
a Seimas member is the fact that under Part 3 of Article 60 of
the Constitution the services of the Seimas member and all
expenses incurred from parliamentary activities shall be
reimbursed with funds from the state budget. This is one of the
guarantees of the independence and equality of rights of Seimas
members. The Constitution does not contain any legal norms
under which for all Seimas members an equal salary must be
established regardless of the fact that a Seimas member may
hold certain office at the Seimas or at the Government. Under
Parts 1, 2 and 4 of Article 60 of the Constitution, the Seimas
enjoys discretion to establish a different salary for work of
the Seimas member to the Seimas member appointed Prime Minister
or a minister from that of the other Seimas members. A
different salary may also be established to the Seimas members
who hold office in the Seimas provided for by the Statute of
the Seimas.
After Part 1 of Article 13 of the Law has provided that
the Seimas member appointed Prime Minister or a minister shall
be paid a monthly salary the size of which is one average
salary, the principle of an unrestricted mandate of the Seimas
member established in Part 4 of Article 59 of the Constitution
and the equality or rights of Seimas members are not violated.
Taking account of the motives set forth, one is to draw a
conclusion that Part 1 of Article 13 of the Law is in
compliance with Part 4 of Article 59 of the Constitution.
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:
To recognise that Part 1 of Article 13 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Working Conditions of Members of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania 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.