Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of Items 6 and 7.2 of Government
of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 942
"On the Partial Amendment of the Conditions of
Remuneration for Work of Employees of Budgetary
Establishments and Organisations" of 27 August
1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and Article 22 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Employment Contract
Vilnius, 18 December 2001
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 representative of the party concerned-the Government
of the Republic of Lithuania-Nerijus Rudaitis, Head of the
Legal Expertise Division of the Law Department of the Ministry
of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania,
pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Constitutional Court, on
29 November 2001 in its public hearing conducted the
investigation of Case No. 16/2000 subsequent to the petition of
the petitioner-the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court-requesting the investigation into the compliance of Items
6 and 7.2 of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
No. 942 "On the Partial Amendment of the Conditions of
Remuneration for Work of Employees of Budgetary Establishments
and Organisations" of 27 August 1999 with Article 48, Item 2 of
Article 94, Article 131 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and Article 22 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Employment Contract.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
The petitioner-the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court-was investigating an administrative case. The said court
suspended the investigation of the case and appealed to the
Constitutional Court with a petition requesting the
investigation into the compliance of Items 6 and 7.2 of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 942 "On
the Partial Amendment of the Conditions of Remuneration for
Work of Employees of Budgetary Establishments and
Organisations" of 27 August 1999 (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 1999, No. 73-2257; hereinafter also referred to as the
Resolution) with Article 48, Item 2 of Article 94, Article 131
of the Constitution and Article 22 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Employment Contract (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
1991, No. 36-973).
II
The request of the petitioner is based on the following
arguments.
1. By Items 6 and 7 of the Resolution, the Government
recognised Item 9 together with Item 9.3 of Government
Resolution No. 357 "On the Partial Amendment of the Conditions
of Remuneration for Work of Employees of Budgetary
Establishments and Organisations" of 14 April 1997 as no longer
valid. By Item 9.3 thereof it had been permitted to increase,
up to 2 times, the official salaries (expressed in
coefficients) of the heads, officers and specialists of the
Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance of the
Republic of Lithuania and of territorial customs who exercise
the functions related to their main activities, which had been
established in Annex 2 of Government Resolution No. 499 "On the
Temporary Experimental Procedure for Remuneration for Work to
Heads and Other Officials of State Power, State Administration
and Law Enforcement Bodies" of 29 November 1991. By the
Resolution the Government recognised Item 2 together with Item
2.3 of Government Resolution No. 689 "On Remuneration for Work
of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order
Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions"
of 30 June 1997 as no longer valid. By Item 2.3 thereof it had
been permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the established
official salaries (expressed in coefficients) of the Director
and deputy directors of the Customs Department under the
Ministry of Finance, heads and deputy heads of its divisions
(exercising the functions related to their main activities),
chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs-houses, chiefs of customs
divisions (exercising the functions related to their main
activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs posts, chiefs
of subdivisions of customs posts, and chiefs of shifts of
customs posts without exceeding the finances allocated for
remuneration for work.
The petitioner points out that the Government Resolution
No. 942 "On the Partial Amendment of the Conditions of
Remuneration for Work of Employees of Budgetary Establishments
and Organisations" of 27 August 1999 was adopted prior to the
enactment of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending the Law
on Approving the Financial Indices of 1999 State Budget and
Budgets of Local Governments, therefore the petitioner doubts
whether this is in conformity with Paragraph 2 of Article 131
of the Constitution wherein it is provided that expenditures
established by law may not be reduced as long as said laws are
not amended
2. In its petition the petitioner points out that the
Resolution was adopted without making any reference to laws,
even though Article 94 of the Constitution and Article 22 of
the Law on the Government of the Republic of Lithuania provide
that the Government shall implement laws and resolutions of the
Seimas concerning the implementation of laws, as well as the
decrees of the President of the Republic. Therefore the
petitioner doubts whether the disputed items of the Resolution
are in compliance with Item 2 of Article 94 of the
Constitution.
3. The petitioner maintains that under Article 8 of the
Law on Employment Contract, the salary is one of the conditions
agreed upon in each employment contract. Paragraph 1 of Article
22 of the Law on Employment Contract provides that an employer
has the right to change an employee's working conditions only
when this change is related to changes in production or
technology, or when the organisation of labour is being changed
and the employer has to change the working conditions as a
result. The employer must inform the employer about the planned
changed in working conditions no later than one month prior to
the introduction of such changes (Paragraph 2 of Article 22 of
the Law on Employment Contract). If an employee refuses to work
under changed working conditions, he or she may be discharged
from work in the manner established in Paragraph 9 of Article
26 of the Law on Employment Contract (Paragraph 3 of Article 22
of the Law on Employment Contract).
The petitioner points out in the petition that, on 15
November 1999, the Chief of the Vilnius Territorial Customs
issued Order No. 369-K "On Salaries". This order was issued by
implementing the Resolution, i.e. in the absence of one of the
circumstances provided for in Paragraph 1 of Article 22 of the
Law on Employment Contract, which is changing of one of the
conditions of the employment contract-remuneration for work.
Besides, it is established in Item 13 of the Resolution that
the said Resolution shall come into force as of 1 September
1999. The petitioner maintains that this provision did not
create the conditions for the employers to fulfil the
requirements established in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 22 of
the Law on Employment Contract, therefore the petitioner doubts
whether the disputed items of the Resolution are in compliance
with Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contract.
4. The petitioner points out that it is guaranteed in
Article 48 of the Constitution that every person shall have the
right adequate compensation for work. The official salaries for
officers of the Vilnius Territorial Customs increased as of 1
September 1997 used to be established until the end of every
calendar year on the grounds of governmental resolutions. The
finances for such payments were provided for in the budgets of
1998 and 1999, while the payment was cancelled on the grounds
of the Resolution the compliance whereof with Paragraph 2 of
Article 131 and Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution is
doubted by the petitioner. The petitioner also doubts whether
the disputed items of the Resolution are in compliance with
Article 48 of the Constitution.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were
received from the representatives of the party concerned-the
Government-A. Bartkevičius, Head of the Labour Relations and
Remuneration Division of the Ministry of Social Security and
Labour of the Republic of Lithuania and E. Žukauskas, the chief
specialist of the Legal Expertise Division of the then Ministry
of Administration Reform and Local Government Affairs of the
Republic of Lithuania, as well as from N. Rudaitis, Head of the
Legal Expertise Division of the Law Department of the Ministry
of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania. The
representatives of the party concerned presented the following
arguments.
1. In the opinion of A. Bartkevičius and E. Žukauskas, the
doubt of the petitioner as to the compliance of Items 6, 7 and
7.1 of Government Resolution No. 942 "On the Partial Amendment
of the Conditions of Remuneration for Work of Employees of
Budgetary Establishments and Organisations" of 27 August 1999
with Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution is
groundless as the Resolution does not contain any provisions on
reduction of officials salaries. In this case the important
thing is the date of the commencement of the enforcement of
this Resolution but not the date of its adoption. The
enforcement of the Resolution commenced only after the
enactment of the Law on Amending the Law on Approving the
Financial Indices of 1999 State Budget and Budgets of Local
Governments.
According to A. Bartkevičius and E. Žukauskas, the doubt
of the petitioner whether Items 6, 7 and 7.1 of the Resolution
are in compliance with Paragraph 2 of Article 94 of the
Constitution as, allegedly, in the course of the adoption of
the Resolution no reference was made to laws, is groundless. In
the opinion of the representatives of the party concerned, the
provision entrenched in Item 2 of Article 94 of the
Constitution that the Government shall implement laws and
resolutions of the Seimas concerning the implementation of
laws, as well as the decrees of the President of the Republic
is one of the functions of the Government listed in the
Constitution. If one points out only this provision, the scope
of the empowerment of the Government is reduced. Paragraph 2 of
Article 32 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Public Service
provides that the amount of the basic salary for public
servants shall be determined in accordance with the coefficient
of the basic salary the rates whereof for different grades
shall be set forth by the law. However, as such a law has not
been adopted yet, the conditions of remuneration for work for
public servants are established by governmental resolutions.
The representatives of the party concerned note that the
Government adopted the disputed Resolution in attempt to
implement the provision "to improve the system of remuneration
for work of the employees whose salaries are paid from the
budget of the Republic of Lithuania and from budgets of local
governments" of the Programme of the Government Activities for
1999-2000. This Resolution, while taking account of the
existing economic and financial situation and the necessity to
economise and use budgetary means in a more efficient manner,
as well as to remove unreasonable disproportions of
remuneration for work created in certain state institutions,
adjusted certain conditions of remuneration for work for
certain public servants.
Under Article 2 of the Law on Public Service, customs
officers and other public servants to whom Items 6, 7 and 7.1
of the Resolution are applicable are civil servants. Under
Article 62 of the Law on Public Service, they acquired the
status of a public servant within 5 days after entry into force
(30 July 1999) of the Law on Public Service. Paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of the Law on Public Service provides that employment
contracts shall not be concluded with civil servants.
Therefore, in the opinion of the representatives of the party
concerned, the provisions of Article 22 of the Law on
Employment Contract are not applicable to customs officers and
other civil servants.
A. Bartkevičius and E. Žukauskas maintain that the doubt
of the petitioner whether the Resolution is in compliance with
the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution which
guarantees that every person shall be compensated for work
adequately is unreasonable as no arguments have been presented
confirming that after the adoption of the disputed Resolution
the compensation for work became unfair.
2. The representative of the party concerned N. Rudaitis,
virtually approving of the written explanations by A.
Bartkevičius and E. Žukauskas, presented additional
explanations. It is noted therein that the provision of
Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution that every person
shall have the right to adequate compensation for work means
that every person has the right to receive compensation
guaranteeing adequate subsistence level for him and his family
members, extra pay for working overtime and extraordinary
working conditions, equal pay for men and women for the same
work, a proper notice in advance concerning the time of
dismissal from work, restriction of deductions from the
remuneration for work. The Resolution amended the legal norms
which had permitted to increase the official salaries of public
servants of certain state institutions and establishments.
However, even though after the opportunity to increase the
official salaries had been removed, the sizes of the official
salaries established by the Resolution were not in conflict
with the provisions of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Wages
and the Republic of Lithuania Law on Individual Income Security
which establish the minimal size of remuneration for work along
with the other guarantees related to remuneration for work. In
the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, Items
6, 7 and 7.1 of the Resolution are in compliance with Article
48 of the Constitution.
Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution provides for the
duty of the Government to implement laws and resolutions of the
Seimas concerning the implementation of laws, as well as the
decrees of the President of the Republic. This is only one of
the functions of the Government. Along with this function,
Article 94 of the Constitution provides also for such functions
of the Government as administration of the affairs of the
country, protection of the inviolability of the territory of
the Republic of Lithuania, ensuring the state security and
public order, coordination of the activities of the ministries
and other governmental establishments, discharging of other
duties which may be prescribed to the Government by the
Constitution and other laws. According to the representative of
the party concerned, the fact whether a governmental resolution
makes a reference to a respective law, resolution of the Seimas
or a decree of the President of the Republic should not and
could not determine whether the Government implements laws and
resolutions of the Seimas concerning the implementation of
laws, as well as the decrees of the President of the Republic
or whether it does not implement them. The representative of
the party concerned is of the opinion that Items 6, 7 and 7.1
of the Resolution are in compliance with Item 2 of Article 94
of the Constitution.
According to the representative of the party concerned,
the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution
that expenditures established by law may not be reduced as long
as said laws are not amended should be understood as meaning
that it is not permitted to reduce the allocations for a state
institution or establishment which have been provided for in
the law on the approval of financial indices of the state
budget and budgets of local governments for a particular year.
The allocations were not reduced by the Resolution, i.e. on the
basis of the Resolution neither the Customs Department under
the Ministry of Finance nor the Vilnius Territorial Customs
were allocated less finances than provided in the Law on
Amending the Law on Approving the Financial Indices of 1999
State Budget and Budgets of Local Governments. In the opinion
of N. Rudaitis, Items 6, 7 and 7.1 of the Resolution are in
compliance with Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution.
The representative of the party concerned is of the
opinion that the Resolution did not change the working
conditions of either the customs officers of the Vilnius
Territorial Customs or other public servants. The Resolution
merely amended the legal norms which had provided for an
opportunity to increase the official salaries and which
concrete state institutions and establishments (heads of these
state institutions and establishments) were entitled to
implement, therefore Items 6, 7 and 7.1 of the said Resolution
are in compliance with Article 22 of the Law on Employment
Contract.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
judicial investigation, written explanations were received from
I. Degutienė, Deputy Chairman of the Committee on Social
Affairs and Labour of the Seimas, G. Švedas, Vice-minister of
Justice, E. Gustas, Vice-minister of the Interior, V.
Vadapalas, Director General of the European Law Department
under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, Dr. E.
Šileikis, a senior assistant at the Department of Public Law of
the Faculty of Law, Vilnius University, P. Abaravičius, an
Acting State Chief Labour Inspector of the Republic of
Lithuania, G. Gruzdienė, Deputy Chairman of the Lithuanian
Trade Union Alliance and A. Kvedaravičius, First Deputy
Chairman of the Lithuanian Trade Union Centre.
V
At the Constitutional Court hearing, the representative of
the party concerned-the Government-N. Rudaitis virtually
reiterated the arguments set down in his written explanations.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. On 27 August 1999, the Government adopted Resolution
No. 942 "On the Partial Amendment of the Conditions of
Remuneration for Work of Employees of Budgetary Establishments
and Organisations" which provided:
"<...> 6. To recognise Items 9 and 10.1 of Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 357 'On the Partial
Amendment of the Conditions of Remuneration for Work of
Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations' of 14
April 1997 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1997, No.
33-834) as no longer valid.
7. To partially amend Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On Remuneration for Work of Chief
Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and
of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions' of 30 June 1997
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1997, No. 64-1511, No.
71-1804, No. 93-2334, No. 117-3027; 1998, No. 91-2528):
7.1. to cross out the words 'for the Commander-in-Chief of
the internal service units of the Ministry of the Interior, the
Commissioner General of the Police Department' in Item 1.1;
7.2. to recognise Items 1.3 and 2 as no longer valid;
7.3. to set forth Items 3.1 and 3.2 as follows:
'3.1. decisions on the increase of the official salaries
for the heads and officials pointed out in Item 1.2 of this
Resolution shall be adopted by the heads of respective
institutions;
3.2. for the heads, judges and officials to whom the
official salaries are increased under the procedure established
in this Resolution';
7.4. to cross out the words 'and those of Item 9 of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 357 "On
the Partial Amendment of the Conditions of Remuneration for
Work of Employees of Budgetary Establishments and
Organisations" of 14 April 1997 (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 1997, No. 33-834, No. 60-1427)' from Item 3.2.1;
7.5. instead of the word 'functionary', to enter the word
'official' in Item 3.3."
Item 9 of Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 357 "On the Partial Amendment of the Conditions
of Remuneration for Work of Employees of Budgetary
Establishments and Organisations" of 14 April 1997 (wording of
13 February 1999) provided:
"9. To permit
9.1. the increase, up to 2 times, of the maximum sizes of
the coefficients of the official salary schemes, established in
Annex 2 of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
No. 499 of 29 November 1991 (wording of this Resolution), of
heads and specialists of the Law Department and the Courts
Inspection Department of the Ministry of Justice and the
Department of Courts under the Ministry of Justice and those of
the coefficients of the official salary schemes, established in
Annex 1 of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
No. 511 of 8 July 1993 (wording of this Resolution), of experts
of the Lithuanian Forensics Institute;
9.2. the increase, up to 2.5 times, of the official
salaries (expressed in coefficients), established in Annex 2 of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 499 of
29 November 1991 (wording of this Resolution), of the heads,
officers and specialists of territorial state taxation
inspectorates under the Ministry of Finance, who exercise the
functions related to their main activities;
9.3. the increase, up to 2 times, of the official salaries
(expressed in coefficients), established in Annex 2 of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 499 of
29 November 1991 (wording of this Resolution), of the heads,
officers and specialists of the Customs Department under the
Ministry of Finance and of territorial customs, who exercise
the functions related to their main activities;
9.4. the increase, up to 2.5 times, of the official
salaries (expressed in coefficients), established in Annex 2 of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 499 of
29 November 1991 (wording of this Resolution), of the heads and
specialists of the Inspection Department under the Ministry of
Finance, who carry out inspections on the instructions of
courts and establishments of law and order;
9.5. the increase, up to 2.5 times, of the official
salaries (expressed in coefficients), established in Annexes 2
and 8 of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
499 of 29 November 1991 (wording of this Resolution, of the
heads, officers, functionaries and specialists of the Taxation
Police Department under the Ministry of the Interior, the
Interrogation Department and its subdivisions under the
Ministry of the Interior, the Office of the Inspector General
of the Ministry of the Interior and the Special Investigation
Service under the Ministry of the Interior;
9.6. the increase, up to 2 times, of the official salaries
(expressed in coefficients), established in Annexes 2 and 8 of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 499 of
29 November 1991 (wording of this Resolution), of the heads and
officers of the Organised Crime Investigation Service and its
subdivisions of the Police Department, and the official
salaries (expressed in coefficients), established by Government
of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 175 of 16 March
1994 (wording of this Resolution), of the heads and officers of
the Department of Guarding the President of the Republic of
Lithuania, Chairman of the Seimas, Prime Minister and Official
Guests under the Ministry of the Interior."
Item 2 of Government Resolution No. 689 "On Remuneration
for Work of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order
Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions"
of 30 June 1997 (wording of 13 October 1998) stipulated:
"2. To permit the increase of up to 2.5 times of the
established official salaries, without exceeding the means
allocated for remuneration for work, to:
2.1. the directors, deputy directors of the departments,
heads of divisions of the central office of the Ministry of the
Interior, Director and deputy directors of the Interrogation
Department, Deputy Commissioners General of the Police
Department, heads and deputy heads of structural subdivisions,
heads of boards of structural subdivisions and their divisions,
chiefs and deputy chiefs of police units, chiefs and deputy
chiefs of town, town-territorial, town and district, district
and transport police commissioner's offices, heads of
structural subdivisions of police services of the Police
Department, the Commissioner General of the State Border Guard
Police Department, his deputies, chiefs and deputy chiefs of
state border guard police units, chiefs and deputy chiefs of
outposts (border control services), chiefs and deputy chiefs of
border control posts, chiefs of shifts of border control posts,
chiefs of operational divisions of state border guard police
units;
2.2. Head and deputy heads, heads and deputy heads of
divisions (exercising the functions related to their main
activities), heads of the groups (exercising the functions
related to their main activities), heads of groups (exercising
the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and
deputy chiefs of territorial state taxation inspectorates,
heads and deputy heads of divisions (exercising the functions
related to their main activities) of the State Taxation
Inspectorate under the Ministry of Finance;
2.3. Director and deputy directors of the Customs
Department under the Ministry of Finance, heads and deputy
heads of its divisions (exercising the functions related to
their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of
customs-houses, chiefs of customs divisions (exercising the
functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy
chiefs of customs posts, chiefs of subdivisions of customs
posts, and chiefs of shifts of customs posts;
2.4. Director and deputy directors, the heads and deputy
heads of divisions (exercising the functions related to their
main activities) of the Inspection Department under the
Ministry of Finance;
2.5. deputies of the State Controller, heads and deputy
heads of divisions and the head of the Interrogation Division
of the State Control;
2.6. Head of the State Tobacco and Alcohol Control
Service, heads and deputy heads of divisions (exercising the
functions related to their main activities) of the same
service."
3. The petitioner doubts whether Items 6, 7 and 7.1 of the
Resolution are in compliance with Article 48, Item 2 of Article
94 of the Constitution and Article 22 of the Law on Employment
Contract.
Although the petitioner requests the investigation into
the compliance of Item 7.1 of the Resolution with the
Constitution and Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contract,
however, it is clear from the motives presented in the petition
that the petitioner doubts as to the compliance of Item 7.2 but
not of Item 7.1 of the Resolution with the Constitution and
Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contract.
It is also clear from the motives presented in the
petition of the petitioner that the petitioner doubts as to the
compliance of not entire Item 6 and not entire Item 7 with the
Constitution and Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contract
but only to the extent of Item 6 of the Resolution that Item
9.3 of by Government Resolution No. 357 "On the Partial
Amendment of the Conditions of Remuneration for Work of
Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations" of 14
April 1997 (wording of 24 June 1997) was recognised as no
longer valid, while under the latter item it had been permitted
to increase, up to 2 times, the official salaries (expressed in
coefficients) of the heads, officers and specialists of the
Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance and of
territorial customs who exercise the functions related to their
main activities, which had been established in Annex 2 of
Government Resolution No. 499 "On the Temporary Experimental
Procedure for Remuneration for Work to Heads and Other
Officials of State Power, State Administration and Law
Enforcement Bodies" of 29 November 1991 (hereinafter also
referred to as the disputed provisions of the Resolution), and
only to the extent of Item 7.2 of the Resolution that Item 2.3
of Government Resolution No. 689 "On Remuneration for Work of
Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions
and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions" of 30 June
1997 (wording of 13 October 1998) was recognised as no longer
valid, while under the latter item it had been permitted to
increase, up to 2.5 times, the established official salaries
(expressed in coefficients) of the Director and deputy
directors of the Customs Department under the Ministry of
Finance, heads and deputy heads of its divisions (exercising
the functions related to their main activities, chiefs and
deputy chiefs of customs-houses, chiefs of customs divisions
(exercising the functions related to their main activities),
chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs posts, chiefs of
subdivisions of customs posts, and chiefs of shifts of customs
posts without exceeding the finances allocated for remuneration
for work (hereinafter also referred to as the disputed
provisions of the Resolution).
In its ruling the petitioner points out that it requests
the investigation into the compliance of the disputed
provisions of the Resolution with Article 48 of the
Constitution.
It is clear from the motives of the request of the
petitioner that the petitioner doubts as to the compliance of
the disputed provisions of the Resolution with not entire
Article 48 of the Constitution but only with the provision of
Paragraph 1 thereof that every person shall have the right to
adequate compensation for work.
The petitioner points out in its ruling that it requests
the investigation into the compliance of the disputed
provisions of the Resolution with Article 131 of the
Constitution.
It is clear from the motives of the petitioner that the
petitioner doubts as to the compliance of the disputed
provisions of the Resolution with not entire Article 131 of the
Constitution but only with the provision of Paragraph 2 thereof
that expenditures established by law may not be reduced as long
as said laws are not amended.
Subsequent to the petition of the petitioner, the
Constitutional Court will consider whether the disputed
provisions of the Resolution are in compliance with the
provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution that
every person shall have the right to adequate compensation for
work, Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution, the provision
of Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution that
expenditures established by law may not be reduced as long as
said laws are not amended, and Article 22 of the Law on
Employment contract.
II
On the compliance of Items 6 and 7.2 of Government
Resolution No. 942 "On the Partial Amendment of the Conditions
of Remuneration for Work of Employees of Budgetary
Establishments and Organisations" of 27 August 1999 with the
provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution that
every person shall have the right to adequate compensation for
work.
1. In the context of the case at issue, the right of every
person to adequate compensation for work as established in
Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, means, in
general, that the remuneration for work of public servants,
which is one of the main pre-conditions to realise their other
legitimate interests, must be established by law and paid at
the time fixed in the laws.
The right to adequate compensation for work guaranteed in
the Constitution is directly related to the principle of
equality of all persons before the law, the court, and other
state institutions. It is prohibited to diminish one's
remuneration for work on the basis of one's sex, race,
nationality, citizenship, political convictions, one's attitude
towards religion, and other circumstances not related to the
professional characteristics of the employee, if the functions
of work of the employee, the scope of his work etc. have not
been changed.
2. It needs to be noted that the right to adequate
compensation for work entrenched in the Constitution is
inseparably linked with the constitutional principle of a
law-governed state, which includes the principle of protection
of legitimate expectations as well. In the context of the case
at issue, the constitutional principle of protection of
legitimate expectations means that in cases when a certain
remuneration for work has been established for a person by
legal acts, then this remuneration must be paid throughout the
duration of the established time.
The principle of protection of legitimate expectations is
linked with the duty of all state institutions to observe the
undertaken obligations. This principle also means the
protection of the acquired rights, i.e. persons have the right
to reasonably expect that the rights acquired under the valid
legal acts will be retained for the established period of time
and will be implemented in reality. In its ruling of 12 July
2001, the Constitutional Court held that under this principle,
legal regulation may be amended only in pursuance with an
earlier established procedure and without violating the
principles and norms of the Constitution, and that it is
necessary, inter alia, to follow the principle lex retro non
agit, and that it is impermissible to deny legitimate interests
and legitimate expectations of persons.
It needs to be noted that the principle of protection of
legitimate expectations does not mean that the remuneration for
work paid to public servants from the finances of the state
budget and those of local government budgets may not be
reduced, however, this may be done only in exceptional cases
and only if it is necessary to protect the values entrenched in
the Constitution. Bet even in such exceptional cases the
remuneration for work may not be reduced in violation of the
balance established in the Constitution between the interests
of the person and those of the society. It also needs to be
noted that the remuneration for work may not be reduced only to
certain categories of employees who are compensated for their
work from the finances of the state budget and local government
budgets. The principle of legitimate expectations also means
that reduction of remuneration for work must be in line with
the constitutional principle of proportionality.
3. In the course of the consideration of the conformity of
the disputed provisions of the Resolution with the
Constitution, one must ascertain how the procedure of
compensation for work of customs officers was regulated at the
time of the adoption of the Resolution.
At the time of the adoption of the Resolution, the Statute
of Service in the Customs of the Republic of Lithuania was in
force, which was approved by the 11 June 1996 Republic of
Lithuania Law on Approving the Statute of Service in the
Customs of the Republic of Lithuania (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 1996, No. 64-1499). It was provided in
Article 63 of the Statute that the position (official) salary,
extra pays for the service rank, those for the years of service
and other payments established by laws shall constitute the
remuneration for work of the officers, while Article 64 thereof
stipulated that the procedure of establishing and the sizes of
the position (official) salary and material incentive of the
officers shall be established by laws and governmental
resolutions.
The procedure of compensation for work of customs officers
was established by Government Resolution No. 499 "On the
Temporary Experimental Procedure for Remuneration for Work to
Heads and Other Officials of State Power, State Administration
and Law Enforcement Bodies" of 29 November 1991.
4. By Item 9.3 of Government Resolution No. 357 "On the
Partial Amendment of the Conditions of Remuneration for Work of
Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations" of 14
April 1997 it had been permitted to increase, up to 2 times,
the official salaries (expressed in coefficients) of the
customs officers, chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs-houses,
chiefs and deputy chiefs of their divisions, chiefs of posts
and shifts, chief customs inspectors, senior customs inspectors
and customs inspectors of the Customs Department under the
Ministry of Finance, which had been established in Annex 2 of
Government Resolution No. 499 "On the Temporary Experimental
Procedure for Remuneration for Work to Heads and Other
Officials of State Power, State Administration and Law
Enforcement Bodies" of 29 November 1991. Item 14 of the same
resolution provided that the established changes in the
conditions of compensation for work shall be applied as of 1
May 1997 and the changes shall be implemented without exceeding
the finances allocated for the remuneration for work in 1997.
After Item 9.3 of the aforesaid Government Resolution of 14
April 1997 had been amended by Item 4.2 of Government
Resolution No. 665 "On the Partial Amendment of Certain
Resolutions of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Dealing with Issues of the Remuneration for Work of the
Employees of the Budgetary Establishments and Organisations" of
24 June 1997, it was permitted to increase, up to 2 times, the
official salaries (expressed in coefficients) of the heads,
officers and specialists of the Customs Department under the
Ministry of Finance and of territorial customs who exercise the
functions related to their main activities, which had been
established in Annex 2 of Government Resolution No. 499 "On the
Temporary Experimental Procedure for Remuneration for Work to
Heads and Other Officials of State Power, State Administration
and Law Enforcement Bodies" of 29 November 1991.
By Item 2.3 of Government Resolution No. 689 "On
Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and Functionaries of
Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control
Institutions" of 30 June 1997 it had been permitted to
increase, up to 2.5 times, the established official salaries
(expressed in coefficients) of the Director and deputy
directors of the Customs Department under the Ministry of
Finance, heads and deputy heads of its divisions (exercising
the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and
deputy chiefs of customs-houses, and chiefs of shifts of
customs posts. Item 3.1 of the same resolution provided that in
case of failure to accumulate enough finances, the official
salaries for the persons listed in Item 2.3 of that resolution
were permitted to be increased at later months, however, no
later than as of 1 September 1997. Decisions on the increase of
the official salaries had to be adopted by the heads of
respective institutions. After Item 2.3 of the Government
Resolution of 30 June 1997 had been changed by Item 1.2 of
Government Resolution No. 1438 "On the Partial Amendment of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On
Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and Functionaries of
Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control
Institutions' of 30 June 1997" of 19 December 1997, it was
permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the established
official salaries (expressed in coefficients) of chiefs of
customs divisions (exercising the functions related to their
main activities), and chiefs of subdivisions of customs posts.
After the first paragraph of Item 2 of the Government
Resolution of 30 June 1997 had been changed by Item 1 of
Government Resolution No. 1227 "On the Partial Amendment of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On
Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and Functionaries of
Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control
Institutions' of 30 June 1997" of 13 October 1998, it was
provided to permit the increase of up to 2.5 times of the
established official salaries (expressed in coefficients)
without exceeding the finances allocated for remuneration for
work.
5. The formula "to permit the increase" as employed in
Government Resolution No. 357 "On the Partial Amendment of the
Conditions of Remuneration for Work of Employees of Budgetary
Establishments and Organisations" of 14 April 1997 and in
Government Resolution No. 689 "On Remuneration for Work of
Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions
and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions" of 30 June
1997 means that the head of a corresponding state institution
was granted the right to increase the official salaries
(expressed in coefficients) of the employees of that state
institution without exceeding the means provided for in the
fund of the remuneration for work provided in the law on the
approval of financial indices of the state budget and budgets
of local governments for a particular year. It needs to be
noted that a mere permission to increase the official salaries
(expressed in coefficients) did not mean that a guarantee was
established for the employees that their official salaries
would be increased. In themselves the aforementioned
governmental resolutions did not establish bigger coefficients
of the official salaries, nor did they guarantee of their own
accord that such bigger salary coefficients would be
established. The legitimate expectations might only appear
subsequent to these governmental resolutions when the head of a
corresponding state institution adopted a decision on the basis
of the aforesaid governmental resolutions, by which he
increased the official salary coefficient for particular
persons.
6. After the head of a corresponding state institution had
adopted a decision on increasing the official salary
coefficient for particular persons, particular expectations
appeared for the said persons under which the salaries under
the increased coefficients for these persons were to be paid
for a certain time period, which the state had undertaken to
pay.
The remuneration for work of customs officers is paid from
the finances of the state budget. The finances allocated for
payment of the remuneration for work are provided for in the
law on the approval of financial indices of the state budget
and budgets of local governments for a particular year. Taking
account of the fact that under said Government Resolution No.
357 of 14 April 1997 and said Government Resolution No. 689 of
30 June 1997 the increase of the salaries (expressed in
coefficients) was linked with the finances of the fund of
remuneration for work which is established in every budgetary
year, one is to draw a conclusion that the officers to whom at
the beginning of a particular year the increased official
salaries (expressed in coefficients) were established, had the
right to the legitimate expectation that such official salaries
would be paid to them until the end of the budgetary year.
7. By its Resolution the Government recognised Item 9.3 of
Government Resolution No. 357 "On the Partial Amendment of the
Conditions of Remuneration for Work of Employees of Budgetary
Establishments and Organisations" of 14 April 1997 whereby it
had been permitted to increase up to 2 times the official
salaries of certain customs officers, and Item 2.3 Government
Resolution No. 689 "On Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials
and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law
Enforcement and Control Institutions" of 30 June 1997 whereby
it had been permitted to increase up to 2.5 times the official
salaries of certain customs officers as no longer valid. It
meant that the heads of corresponding customs-houses lost their
right to increase the official salaries (expressed in
coefficients) after the Resolution had gone into effect. The
Resolution abolishing the right to increase the official
salaries (expressed in coefficients) did not mean that the said
Resolution reduced the formerly established official salaries
for particular persons under the increased coefficients. Thus,
the Resolution did not create a legal basis to change the
formerly increased official salary coefficients in the same
budgetary year when the Resolution was adopted.
8. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Item 6 of Resolution No. 942 "On the Partial
Amendment of the Conditions of Remuneration for Work of
Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations" of 27
August 1999 whereby Item 9.3 of Government Resolution No. 357
"On the Partial Amendment of the Conditions of Remuneration for
Work of Employees of Budgetary Establishments and
Organisations" of 14 April 1997 (wording of 24 June 1997) was
recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it
had been permitted to increase, up to 2 times, the official
salaries (expressed in coefficients) of the heads, officers and
specialists of the Customs Department under the Ministry of
Finance and of territorial customs who exercise the functions
related to their main activities, which had been established in
Annex 2 of Government Resolution No. 499 "On the Temporary
Experimental Procedure for Remuneration for Work to Heads and
Other Officials of State Power, State Administration and Law
Enforcement Bodies" of 29 November 1991, and Item 7.2 of the
Resolution whereby Item 2.3 of Government Resolution No. 689
"On Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and Functionaries
of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and
Control Institutions" of 30 June 1997 (wording of 13 October
1998) was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter
item it had been permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the
established official salaries (expressed in coefficients) of
the Director and deputy directors of the Customs Department
under the Ministry of Finance, heads and deputy heads of its
divisions (exercising the functions related to their main
activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs-houses, chiefs
of customs divisions (exercising the functions related to their
main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs posts,
chiefs of subdivisions of customs posts, and chiefs of shifts
of customs posts without exceeding the finances allocated for
remuneration for work are in compliance with the provision of
Article 48 of the Constitution that every person shall have the
right to adequate compensation for work.
III
On the compliance of Items 6 and 7.2 of Government
Resolution No. 942 "On the Partial Amendment of the Conditions
of Remuneration for Work of Employees of Budgetary
Establishments and Organisations" of 27 August 1999 with the
provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution
that expenditures established by law may not be reduced as long
as said laws are not amended.
1. Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution provides
that expenditures established by law may not be reduced as long
as said laws are not amended.
2. As it has been mentioned, from the moment of the
Resolution's coming into force, the heads of customs-houses
lost their right to increase the official salaries (expressed
in coefficients). By the Resolution the finances allocated for
remuneration for work approved by the 3 December 1998 Law on
Approving the Financial Indices of 1999 State Budget and
Budgets of Local Governments were not diminished. Thus the
disputed provisions of the Resolution regulate different
relations, they are not directly related to the provision of
Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution that
expenditures established by law may not be reduced as long as
said laws are not amended.
3. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Item 6 of Resolution No. 942 "On the Partial
Amendment of the Conditions of Remuneration for Work of
Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations" of 27
August 1999 whereby Item 9.3 of Government Resolution No. 357
"On the Partial Amendment of the Conditions of Remuneration for
Work of Employees of Budgetary Establishments and
Organisations" of 14 April 1997 (wording of 24 June 1997) was
recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it
had been permitted to increase, up to 2 times, the official
salaries (expressed in coefficients) of the heads, officers and
specialists of the Customs Department under the Ministry of
Finance and of territorial customs who exercise the functions
related to their main activities, which had been established in
Annex 2 of Government Resolution No. 499 "On the Temporary
Experimental Procedure for Remuneration for Work to Heads and
Other Officials of State Power, State Administration and Law
Enforcement Bodies" of 29 November 1991, and Item 7.2 of the
Resolution whereby Item 2.3 of Government Resolution No. 689
"On Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and Functionaries
of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and
Control Institutions" of 30 June 1997 (wording of 13 October
1998) was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter
item it had been permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the
established official salaries (expressed in coefficients) of
the Director and deputy directors of the Customs Department
under the Ministry of Finance, heads and deputy heads of its
divisions (exercising the functions related to their main
activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs-houses, chiefs
of customs divisions (exercising the functions related to their
main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs posts,
chiefs of subdivisions of customs posts, and chiefs of shifts
of customs posts without exceeding the finances allocated for
remuneration for work are in compliance with the provision of
Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution that
expenditures established by law may not be reduced as long as
said laws are not amended.
IV
On the compliance of Items 6 and 7.2 of Government
Resolution No. 942 "On the Partial Amendment of the Conditions
of Remuneration for Work of Employees of Budgetary
Establishments and Organisations" of 27 August 1999 with Item 2
of Article 94 of the Constitution.
1. Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution provides that
the Government shall implement laws and resolutions of the
Seimas concerning the implementation of laws, as well as the
decrees of the President of the Republic.
The petitioner doubts whether the disputed provisions of
the Resolution are in compliance with Item 2 of Article 94 of
the Constitution, as the Resolution was adopted without making
any reference to laws.
2. The norm entrenched in Item 2 of Article 94 of the
Constitution means that the Government, while adopting legal
acts, must follow the valid laws and, while enforcing certain
laws, it may not violate other laws. The legal acts adopted by
the Government may not contain any legal norms providing for a
different legal regulation than established in the laws, or any
norms competing with those of laws.
The duty of the Government to adopt substatutory acts
which are necessary so as to implement laws stems directly from
the Constitution, while in case of a commissioning by the
Seimas to do so, it also stems from the laws and Seimas
resolutions concerning implementation of laws (Constitutional
Court ruling of 30 October 2001). It needs to be noted that in
its substatutory legal acts the Government does not have to
make reference to particular laws, Seimas resolutions or
decrees of the President of the Republic, which are being
followed by the Government when it adopts a corresponding
substatutory legal act. It is important that the Government
adopt substatutory legal acts without exceeding its powers, and
that these substatutory acts be in conformity with the
Constitution and laws.
3. The powers of the Government concerning the
establishment of the official salaries for customs officers
were entrenched in the Statute of the Service in the Customs of
the Republic of Lithuania Article 64 whereof stipulated that
the procedure of establishing and the sizes of the position
(official) salary and material incentive of the officers shall
be established by laws and governmental resolutions. Thus,
under the Statute, the Government was entitled to establish the
official salaries of customs officers.
4. It has already been held in this Ruling that by the
Resolution the finances allocated for remuneration for work
approved by the Law on Approving the Financial Indices of 1999
State Budget and Budgets of Local Governments were not
diminished. The Government, while recognising by its Resolution
Item 9.3 of Government Resolution No. 357 "On the Partial
Amendment of the Conditions of Remuneration for Work of
Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations" of 14
April 1997 whereby it had been permitted to increase, up to 2
times, the official salaries of certain customs officers, and
Item 2.3 of Government Resolution No. 689 "On Remuneration for
Work of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order
Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions"
of 30 June 1997 whereby it had been permitted to increase, up
to 2.5 times, the official salaries of certain customs officers
as no longer valid, did not exceed its constitutional powers.
5. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Item 6 of Resolution No. 942 "On the Partial
Amendment of the Conditions of Remuneration for Work of
Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations" of 27
August 1999 whereby Item 9.3 of Government Resolution No. 357
"On the Partial Amendment of the Conditions of Remuneration for
Work of Employees of Budgetary Establishments and
Organisations" of 14 April 1997 (wording of 24 June 1997) was
recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it
had been permitted to increase, up to 2 times, the official
salaries (expressed in coefficients) of the heads, officers and
specialists of the Customs Department under the Ministry of
Finance and of territorial customs who exercise the functions
related to their main activities, which had been established in
Annex 2 of Government Resolution No. 499 "On the Temporary
Experimental Procedure for Remuneration for Work to Heads and
Other Officials of State Power, State Administration and Law
Enforcement Bodies" of 29 November 1991, and Item 7.2 of the
Resolution whereby Item 2.3 of Government Resolution No. 689
"On Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and Functionaries
of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and
Control Institutions" of 30 June 1997 (wording of 13 October
1998) was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter
item it had been permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the
established official salaries (expressed in coefficients) of
the Director and deputy directors of the Customs Department
under the Ministry of Finance, heads and deputy heads of its
divisions (exercising the functions related to their main
activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs-houses, chiefs
of customs divisions (exercising the functions related to their
main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs posts,
chiefs of subdivisions of customs posts, and chiefs of shifts
of customs posts without exceeding the finances allocated for
remuneration for work are in compliance with Item 2 of Article
94 of the Constitution.
V
On the compliance of Items 6 and 7.2 of Government
Resolution No. 942 "On the Partial Amendment of the Conditions
of Remuneration for Work of Employees of Budgetary
Establishments and Organisations" of 27 August 1999 with
Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contract.
1. Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contract provides:
"An employer has the right to change an employee's working
conditions (to change the working place within the same
enterprise and locality, or to assign work with another
machinery or device), or to change other conditions (benefits,
the work regime, the amount of material liability, posts,
etc.), only when this change is related to changes in
production or technology, or when the organization of labour is
being changed and the employer has to change the working
conditions of certain employees as a result.
The employee must be given notice of the planned changes
in working conditions no later than one month prior to the
introduction of such changes. If the changes are related to
production technology, the employer must provide conditions for
the employees to improve their qualifications or change their
specialization so that they will be able to work after the
changes in production or production technology are introduced.
The collective agreement may require a longer notice period, as
well as additional obligations for the provision of conditions
which would enable the employee to prepare for work after the
introduction of changes in production or production technology.
If an employee refuses to work under changed working
conditions, he or she may be discharged from work in the manner
established in Paragraph 9 of Article 26 of this Law.
If changes are introduced and as a consequence an
employee's salary is reduced for reasons beyond his or her
control, the employee shall be compensated for the disparity in
wages for at least three months after the introduction of the
changes in working conditions."
2. It was established in Paragraph 8 of Article 2 of the
Law on Public Service enacted on 8 July 1999 (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130) that customs officers are
statutory public servants whose status is defined by a separate
law or a statute. It was established in Paragraph 1 of Article
4 of the Law on Public Service that this law, without
exception, shall be applicable to civil servants, except
statutory civil servants, to whom this law shall be applicable
in so far as their status is not regulated by other laws and
statutes. It was established in Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the
Law on Public Service that labour laws and other legal acts
regulating labour relations and social guarantees shall apply
to civil servants in so far as they do not contravene this law,
and other laws and statutes regulating their status.
3. It was established in Article 64 of the Statute of
Service in the Customs of the Republic of Lithuania that the
procedure of establishing and the sizes of the position
(official) salary and material incentive of the officers shall
be established by laws and governmental resolutions. The
remuneration for work of customs officers was established by
Government Resolution No. 499 "On the Temporary Experimental
Procedure for Remuneration for Work to Heads and Other
Officials of State Power, State Administration and Law
Enforcement Bodies" of 29 November 1991.
4. It needs to be noted that the finances allocated for
payment of remuneration for work are provided in the law on the
approval of financial indices of the state budget and budgets
of local governments for a particular year. Until 1 October
2001, the procedure of the establishment and the sizes of
remuneration for work for public servants used to be
established by governmental resolutions. Thus the provisions of
Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contract are not applicable
to customs officers.
5. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Item 6 of Resolution No. 942 "On the Partial
Amendment of the Conditions of Remuneration for Work of
Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations" of 27
August 1999 whereby Item 9.3 of Government Resolution No. 357
"On the Partial Amendment of the Conditions of Remuneration for
Work of Employees of Budgetary Establishments and
Organisations" of 14 April 1997 (wording of 24 June 1997) was
recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it
had been permitted to increase, up to 2 times, the official
salaries (expressed in coefficients) of the heads, officers and
specialists of the Customs Department under the Ministry of
Finance and of territorial customs who exercise the functions
related to their main activities, which had been established in
Annex 2 of Government Resolution No. 499 "On the Temporary
Experimental Procedure for Remuneration for Work to Heads and
Other Officials of State Power, State Administration and Law
Enforcement Bodies" of 29 November 1991, and Item 7.2 of the
Resolution whereby Item 2.3 of Government Resolution No. 689
"On Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and Functionaries
of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and
Control Institutions" of 30 June 1997 (wording of 13 October
1998) was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter
item it had been permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the
established official salaries (expressed in coefficients) of
the Director and deputy directors of the Customs Department
under the Ministry of Finance, heads and deputy heads of its
divisions (exercising the functions related to their main
activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs-houses, chiefs
of customs divisions (exercising the functions related to their
main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs posts,
chiefs of subdivisions of customs posts, and chiefs of shifts
of customs posts without exceeding the finances allocated for
remuneration for work are in compliance with Article 22 of the
Law on Employment Contract.
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 of the Republic of Lithuania has passed
the following
ruling:
To recognise that Item 6 of Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 942 "On the Partial Amendment of the
Conditions of Remuneration for Work of Employees of Budgetary
Establishments and Organisations" of 27 August 1999 whereby
Item 9.3 of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
No. 357 "On the Partial Amendment of the Conditions of
Remuneration for Work of Employees of Budgetary Establishments
and Organisations" of 14 April 1997 (wording of 24 June 1997)
was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item
it had been permitted to increase, up to 2 times, the official
salaries (expressed in coefficients) of the heads, officers and
specialists of the Customs Department under the Ministry of
Finance of the Republic of Lithuania and of territorial customs
who exercise the functions related to their main activities,
which had been established in Annex 2 of Government of the
Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 499 "On the Temporary
Experimental Procedure for Remuneration for Work to Heads and
Other Officials of State Power, State Administration and Law
Enforcement Bodies" of 29 November 1991, and Item 7.2 of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 942 "On
the Partial Amendment of the Conditions of Remuneration for
Work of Employees of Budgetary Establishments and
Organisations" of 27 August 1999 whereby Item 2.3 of Government
of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 "On
Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and Functionaries of
Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control
Institutions" of 30 June 1997 (wording of 13 October 1998) was
recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it
had been permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the
established official salaries (expressed in coefficients) of
the Director and deputy directors of the Customs Department
under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania,
heads and deputy heads of its divisions (exercising the
functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy
chiefs of customs-houses, chiefs of customs divisions
(exercising the functions related to their main activities),
chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs posts, chiefs of
subdivisions of customs posts, and chiefs of shifts of customs
posts without exceeding the finances allocated for remuneration
for work are in compliance with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Article 22 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Employment Contract.
This Constitutional Court ruling is final and not subject
to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated on behalf of the Republic of
Lithuania.