Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF ARTICLE 39 OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA LAW ON THE HEALTH SYSTEM, ARTICLES 1, 2
AND 3 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON THE
LONG-TERM FINANCING OF SCIENCE AND EDUCATION,
PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 18 OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA LAW ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUDGET AND
PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 172 OF THE STATUTE OF THE
SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA WITH THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
11 July 2002
Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Armanas
Abramavičius, Egidijus Jarašiūnas, Egidijus Kūris, Kęstutis
Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Jonas Prapiestis, Vytautas
Sinkevičius, and Stasys Stačiokas,
with the secretary of the hearing-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of:
the representatives of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania, the petitioner, who were Gintaras Švedas,
Vice-minister of Justice, and Rimantas Vaicenavičius, Director
of the Fiscal Policy Department of the Ministry of Finance of
the Republic of Lithuania,
the representative of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, the party concerned, who was Paulius Griciūnas, a
senior consultant to the Legal Department of the Office of the
Seimas,
pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Constitutional Court, on 3 July 2002 in
its public hearing heard Case No. 49/01 which originated in a
petition of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania
requesting to determine whether Article 16 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the State Regulation of Economic Relations in
Agriculture, Article 39 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Health System, the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Long-term
Financing of Science and Education, Paragraph 2 of Article 18
of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Structure of the Budget
and Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the Statute of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania were in compliance with the striving
for a law-governed state enshrined in the Preamble to the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Article 5, Item 14
of Article 67, Item 4 of Article 94, Article 130 and Paragraph
1 of Article 131 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. On 22 December 1994, the Seimas enacted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the State Regulation of Economic Relations in
Agriculture (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1995, No. 1-5).
On 19 July 1994, the Seimas enacted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Health System (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 1994, No. 63-1231). On 1 December 1998, the Seimas
enacted the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending the Law on
the Health System (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1998, No.
112-3099), whereby the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Health
System was set forth in a new wording.
On 7 December 2000, the Seimas enacted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Long-term Financing of Science and
Education (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2000, No.
110-3516).
On 30 July 1990, the Supreme Council of the Republic of
Lithuania enacted the Republic of Lithuania Law on Budgeting
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1990, No. 24-596). On 11
July 2000, the Seimas enacted the Law on Amending the Law on
Budgeting (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2000, No.
61-1826), whereby the title of the law "Republic of Lithuania
Law on Budgeting" was changed into that of "Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Structure of the Budget" and set forth
this law in a new wording. On 7 June 2001, the Seimas enacted
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Amendment and Supplement
of Articles 8, 17, 18, 20 and 31 of the Law on the Structure of
the Budget (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2001, No.
55-1939), which inter alia supplemented Article 18 of the Law
on the Structure of the Budget with new Paragraph 2.
On 17 February 1994, the Seimas enacted the Statute of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 1994, No. 15-249). On 22 December 1998, the Seimas
enacted the Statute of the Seimas titled "On the Amendment of
the Statute" (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No.
5-97) whereby the Statute of the Seimas was set forth in a new
wording. On 7 June 2001, the Seimas adopted the Statute of the
Seimas titled "On the Amendment and Supplementation of Articles
31, 32, 36, 172, 177 and 178 of the Statute of the Seimas"
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 50-1748) whereby
inter alia Article 172 of the Statute of the Seimas was
supplemented with new Paragraph 1.
2. The Government of the Republic of Lithuania, the
petitioner, requests the Constitutional Court to determine
whether Article 16 of the Law on the State Regulation of
Economic Relations in Agriculture, Article 39 of the Law on the
Health System, the Law on the Long-term Financing of Science
and Education, Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the
Structure of the Budget and Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the
Statute of the Seimas were in compliance with the striving for
a law-governed state enshrined in the Preamble to the
Constitution, Article 5, Item 14 of Article 67 and Item 4 of
Article 94, Article 130 and Paragraph 1 of Article 131 of the
Constitution.
II
The request of the petitioner is based on the following
arguments.
1. Article 16 of the Law on the State Regulation of
Economic Relations in Agriculture, Article 39 of the Law on the
Health System, the Law on the Long-term Financing of Science
and Education obligate the Government to include appropriations
of established amount (expressed in proportional portions) into
the draft budget for regulation of agriculture, to finance the
health system and to finance science, studies and education
respectively. Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the
Structure of the Budget and Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the
Statute of the Seimas obligate the Government to include the
amounts of appropriations for the Office of the Seimas which
have been established by the Board of the Seimas. The
petitioner maintains that such legal regulation restricts the
constitutional powers of the Government to independently
prepare a draft budget of the state, violates the
constitutional principle of separation of powers and the
striving for a law-governed state enshrined in the
Constitution.
2. In the opinion of the petitioner, under the
Constitution, in the process of forming, approval and execution
of the draft budget of the state the powers of the Seimas and
the Government are separated. The preparation of the draft
budget of the state and submitting it to the Seimas, the
execution of the state budget and submitting to the Seimas an
account of the execution of the budget are attributed to the
competence of the Government. The Seimas considers the draft
budget of the state, approves it and supervises its execution.
Article 94 of the Constitution provides that the Government
shall prepare a draft budget of the State. This provision means
that the Constitution directly grants powers to the Government
to prepare a draft budget of the State. These powers may not be
changed or restricted by laws. In the opinion of the
petitioner, the Seimas should not restrict by concrete
indicators, which are set in advance, the powers of the
Government to prepare a draft budget of the State at its
discretion.
3. The petitioner maintains that the establishment of the
financial indicators expressed in proportional portions of the
gross domestic product or of the national budget contradicts
the principle of effective distribution and use of public
revenues. If concrete financing indicators are set in advance
to finance particular state functions, a respective portion of
appropriations from the budget of the state will be allocated
to concrete areas (science and studies, health system,
agriculture) without taking account of the need to estimate the
financing of other state functions and programmes. Thus the
opportunity is lost to provide for sufficient financing from
the budget of the state for other areas.
4. In the opinion of the petitioner, the annual approval
of the budget should mean the duty of the legislation to take
account of the factual situation of the economy of this
country. Should the number of laws establishing financing of
individual branches of economy or programmes increase, the
annual approval of the budget would lose its sense. The
petitioner maintains that the Constitution provides for the
annual approval of the budget of the state, therefore the
budget ought to be annually prepared while taking account of
the actual situation of the economy of this country, concrete
economic indicators and priorities of the state. In the opinion
of the petitioner, the set in advance financing indicators for
individual programmes and state functions are not in line with
the principle of the annual preparation and approval of the
budget which is entrenched in the Constitution.
5. The petitioner maintains that Article 16 of the Law on
the State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture,
Article 39 of the Law on the Health System, the Law on the
Long-term Financing of Science and Education, Paragraph 2 of
Article 18 of the Law on the Structure of the Budget and
Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the Statute of the Seimas are in
conflict with the striving for a law-governed state enshrined
in the Preamble to the Constitution, Article 5, Item 14 of
Article 67, Item 4 of Article 94, Article 130 and Paragraph 1
of Article 131 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 Seimas, the party
concerned, who were S. Kaplerienė, a senior consultant to the
Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas, and P. Griciūnas,
a senior consultant to the Legal Department of the Office of
the Seimas.
1. It is maintained in the explanations that by the Law on
the State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture one
attempts to restructure the agriculture, to increase its
competitiveness, to solve the social and economic problems of
the agricultural sector; by the Law on the Health System one
attempts to ensure the security of public health, to guarantee
the right of individuals to free medical service; by the Law on
the Long-term Financing of Science and Education, while taking
account of the importance of science, one seeks the public
welfare and state stability. The social objectives entrenched
in the Constitution are subject to change. To implement these
objectives funds are necessary. However, not all social
objectives of the state are of equal importance. In the opinion
of the representatives of the party concerned, the Seimas has
the constitutional right to decide which state social functions
are the most important. The are no opportunities to allocate
sufficient funds during one budgetary year to finance the state
regulatory measures for economic relations in agriculture,
health system, science and education. The Seimas enacted the
Law on the State Regulation of Economic Relations in
Agriculture, the Law on the Health System, the Law on the
Long-term Financing of Science and Education which enable to
ensure the succession of the relations of the budget of the
state in various budgetary years as well as the continuity of
financing. Adopting these laws, the Seimas implemented its
financial competence and declared the state priorities.
2. The representatives of the party concerned maintain
that in the Law on the State Regulation of Economic Relations
in Agriculture, the Law on the Health System, the Law on the
Long-term Financing of Science and Education the amount of the
appropriations is not expressed in a concrete sum. It is
expressed in a proportional portion of the gross domestic
product, therefore these laws of their own accord take account
of the existing social and economic situation, needs and
possibilities of the state and society, available or potential
financial resources, state liabilities and other important
factors. The laws provide for the expenses for concretely
defined and generally important objectives, to attain which
more funds are necessary than it is possible to allocate during
one budgetary year.
3. In the opinion of the representatives of the party
concerned, the Constitution does not provide for any
restrictions for the Seimas to amend the budget or change the
priorities of budgetary expenditures, therefore, while adopting
the Law on the State Regulation of Economic Relations in
Agriculture, the Law on the Health System, the Law on the
Long-term Financing of Science and Education, the Seimas was
implementing its constitutional competence and neither
restricted nor denied the powers of the Government to prepare
and submit to the Seimas the draft budget of the state.
4. The representatives of the party concerned maintain
that one of the most important conditions of the independence
of the parliament is the financial independence of the
parliament from the executive. The material basis must be
created for the implementation of the competence of the Seimas
provided for in the Constitution. The Office of the Seimas
helps the Seimas members to properly exercise their
constitutional functions. In the absence of the guarantee that
sufficient funds will be allocated for the implementation of
the functions of the Office of the Seimas, it would mean that
the Seimas, as the legislative power, is dependent on the
executive. Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the Statute of the
Seimas guarantees the independence of the Seimas as the
legislative power from the executive. Alongside, the
constitutional principle of separation of powers is ensured.
5. According to the representatives of the party
concerned, Article 16 of the Law on the State Regulation of
Economic Relations in Agriculture, Article 39 of the Law on the
Health System, the Law on the Long-term Financing of Science
and Education, Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the
Structure of the Budget and Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the
Statute of the Seimas are in compliance with the Constitution.
IV
At the Constitutional Court hearing, the representatives
of the petitioner who were G. Švedas, Vice-minister of Justice,
and R. Vaicenavičius, Director of the Fiscal Policy Department
of the Ministry of Finance, virtually reiterated the arguments
set forth in the petition.
2. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the
representatives of the party concerned P. Griciūnas, a senior
consultant to the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas,
virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in the written
explanations.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The petitioner requests the Constitutional Court to
determine whether Article 16 of the Law on the State Regulation
of Economic Relations in Agriculture, Article 39 of the Law on
the Health System, the Law on the Long-term Financing of
Science and Education, Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on
the Structure of the Budget and Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of
the Statute of the Seimas are in compliance with the striving
for a law-governed state enshrined in the Preamble to the
Constitution, Article 5, Item 14 of Article 67 and Item 4 of
Article 94, Article 130 and Paragraph 1 of Article 131 of the
Constitution.
2. The Constitutional Court received the petition of the
petitioner requesting to determine the compliance of Article 16
of the Law on the State Regulation of Economic Relations in
Agriculture with the Constitution on 9 November 2001.
The Constitutional Court, having previously considered a
petition received from another petitioner, a group of Seimas
members, requesting to determine the compliance of the Law on
Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2001 State Budget and
Budgets of Local Governments, the Law on the Approval of
Indicators Determining the Amount and Levelling of Revenues of
Local Governments Budgets for 2001, 2002 and 2003 with the
Constitution, by its ruling of 14 January 2002 recognised that
Article 16 of the Law on the State Regulation of Economic
Relations in Agriculture conflicted with Article 129 of the
Constitution and 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.
Under Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court, by a decision, the Constitutional
Court shall refuse to consider petitions for the examination of
the constitutionality of a legal act if the constitutionality
of the act indicated in the petition has already been
investigated by the Constitutional Court and the resolution on
this issue adopted by the Constitutional Court is still in
force.
Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court specifies that in the event that the grounds for refusal
to consider a petition have been established after the
initiation of the examination of the case during the session of
the Constitutional Court, a decision to dismiss the case shall
be adopted.
Conforming to Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 and
Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court, the case in the part concerning the compliance of
Article 16 of the Law on the State Regulation of Economic
Relations in Agriculture with the Constitution is to be
dismissed.
3. The petitioner requests to determine whether the Law on
the Long-term Financing of Science and Education is in
compliance with the Constitution, however, it is clear from the
motives of the petition that the petitioner does not doubt as
to the compliance of the entire said law with the Constitution,
but only as to the compliance of Articles 1 and 2 as well as
the provision "to propose that the Government, when it prepares
respective draft laws on the approval of financial indicators
of the 2001-2004 state budgets and budgets of local
governments, take into consideration the provisions of this
Law" of Article 3 of the same law with the Constitution.
4. The petitioner requests to determine whether Paragraph
1 of Article 172 of the Statute of the Seimas is in compliance
with the Constitution. Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the
Statute of the Seimas reads: "The draft budget of the State
shall be prepared under procedure established in the Republic
of Lithuania Law on the Structure of the Budget. The
Government, while preparing the draft law on approving the
financial indicators of the state budget and budgets of local
governments for a corresponding year and submitting it to the
Seimas, on the proposal of the Board of the Seimas, shall
include into the draft the amounts of appropriations for the
Office of the Seimas which have been approved by the Board of
the Seimas for the programmes of the Office of the Seimas
according to the expenditure estimates."
Although the petitioner requests to determine whether
Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the Statute of the Seimas is in
compliance with the Constitution, however, it is clear from the
motives of the petition that the petitioner does not doubt as
to the compliance of entire Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the
Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution, but only as to the
compliance of the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of
the Statute of the Seimas that the Government, while preparing
the draft law on approving the financial indicators of the
state budget and budgets of local governments for a
corresponding year and submitting it to the Seimas, on the
proposal of the Board of the Seimas, shall include into the
draft the amounts of appropriations for the Office of the
Seimas which have been approved by the Board of the Seimas for
the programmes of the Office of the Seimas according to the
expenditure estimates with the Constitution.
5. The petitioner requests the Constitutional Court to
determine whether Article 39 of the Law on the Health System,
the Law on the Long-term Financing of Science and Education,
Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the Structure of the
Budget and Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the Statute of the
Seimas are in compliance with Item 14 of Article 67 of the
Constitution.
Under Item 14 of Article 67 of the Constitution, the
Seimas shall approve the state budget and supervise the
implementation thereof.
Even though the petitioner requests the Constitutional
Court to determine whether Article 39 of the Law on the Health
System, the Law on the Long-term Financing of Science and
Education, Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the
Structure of the Budget and Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the
Statute of the Seimas are in compliance with Item 14 of Article
67 of the Constitution, however, it is clear the motives of the
petition that the petitioner does not doubt as to the
compliance of these laws and the disputed provisions of the
Statute of the Seimas with entire Item 14 of Article 67 of the
Constitution, but only as to the provision of the said item
that the Seimas shall approve the state budget.
6. The petitioner requests the Constitutional Court to
determine whether Article 39 of the Law on the Health System,
the Law on the Long-term Financing of Science and Education,
Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the Structure of the
Budget and Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the Statute of the
Seimas are in compliance with Item 4 of Article 94 of the
Constitution.
Under Item 4 of Article 94 of the Constitution, the
Government shall prepare a 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.
Even though the petitioner requests the Constitutional
Court to determine whether Article 39 of the Law on the Health
System, the Law on the Long-term Financing of Science and
Education, Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the
Structure of the Budget and Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the
Statute of the Seimas are in compliance with entire Item 14 of
Article 67 of the Constitution, however, it is clear from the
motives of the petition that the petitioner doubts as to the
compliance of the disputed provisions of these laws and the
Statute of the Seimas with the provision of Item 4 of Article
94 of the Constitution that the Government shall prepare a
draft budget of the state.
7. The petitioner requests the Constitutional Court to
determine whether Article 39 of the Law on the Health System,
the Law on the Long-term Financing of Science and Education,
Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the Structure of the
Budget and Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the Statute of the
Seimas are in compliance with Article 130 of the Constitution.
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 not later than 75
days before the end of the budget year."
Even though the petitioner requests the Constitutional
Court to determine whether Article 39 of the Law on the Health
System, the Law on the Long-term Financing of Science and
Education, Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the
Structure of the Budget and Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the
Statute of the Seimas are in compliance with entire Article 130
of the Constitution, however, it is clear from the motives of
the petition that the petitioner doubts as to the compliance of
the disputed provisions of these laws and the Statute of the
Seimas with the provision of Article 130 of the Constitution
that the Government shall prepare a draft budget of the state.
8. The petitioner requests the Constitutional Court to
determine whether Article 39 of the Law on the Health System,
the Law on the Long-term Financing of Science and Education,
Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the Structure of the
Budget and Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the Statute of the
Seimas are in compliance with the striving for a law-governed
state enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution.
The Constitution shall be an integral and directly
applicable statute (Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the
Constitution). The Preamble to the Constitution proclaims the
striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and
law-governed state.
The values and strivings enshrined in the Constitution are
expressed in the constitutional norms and principles. The
striving for a law-governed state is to be interpreted together
with the other provisions of the Constitution which entrench
the principle of a law-governed state. The striving for a
law-governed state is expressed by the constitutional principle
of a law-governed state, therefore, subsequent to the petition
of the petitioner, the Constitutional Court will consider the
compliance of the disputed provisions of the laws pointed out
by the petitioner and the Statute of the Seimas with the
constitutional principle of a law-governed state.
9. Subsequent to the petition of the petitioner, the
Constitutional Court will consider whether Article 39 of the
Law on the Health System, Articles 1 and 2 as well as the
provision "to propose that the Government, when it prepares
respective draft laws on the approval of the financial
indicators of the 2001-2004 state budgets and budgets of local
governments, take into consideration the provisions of this
law" of Article 3 of the Law on the Long-term Financing of
Science and Education, Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on
the Structure of the Budget and the provision of Paragraph 1 of
Article 172 of the Statute of the Seimas that the Government,
while preparing the draft law on approving the financial
indicators of the state budget and budgets of local governments
for a corresponding year and submitting it to the Seimas, on
the proposal of the Board of the Seimas, shall include into the
draft the amounts of appropriations for the Office of the
Seimas which have been approved by the Board of the Seimas for
the programmes of the Office of the Seimas according to the
expenditure estimates are in compliance with Article 5 of the
Constitution, the provision of Item 14 of Article 67 thereof
that the Seimas shall approve the state budget, the provision
of Item 4 of Article 94 thereof that the Government shall
prepare a draft budget of the state, the provision of Article
130 thereof that the Government shall prepare a draft budget of
the state, Paragraph 1 of Article 131 thereof and the
constitutional principle of a law-governed state.
In the case at issue the disputed provisions of the laws
pointed out by the petitioner and those of the Statute of the
Seimas will be considered from the aspect indicated by the
petitioner: whether the disputed provisions do not restrict the
constitutional powers of the Government to prepare the draft
budget of the state.
II
1. The doubts of the petitioner concerning the compliance
of Article 39 of the Law on the Health System, the Law on the
Long-term Financing of Science and Education, Paragraph 2 of
Article 18 of the Law on the Structure of the Budget and
Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the Statute of the Seimas with
the Constitution are based on the fact that, in the opinion of
the petitioner, the disputed provisions of the said laws and
the Statute of the Seimas restrict the constitutional powers of
the Government to independently prepare the draft budget of the
state.
2. While considering whether the disputed provisions of
the laws pointed out by the petitioner and of the Statute of
the Seimas are in compliance with the Constitution, one must,
first of all, ascertain as to what powers for the Government in
the area of the preparation of the draft budget of the state
are established in the Constitution.
2.1. Under Item 4 of Article 94 of the Constitution, the
Government shall prepare a draft budget of the state. Article
130 of the Constitution provides that the Government shall
prepare a draft budget of the State, and shall submit it to the
Seimas.
Paragraph 2 of Article 132 of the Constitution specifies
that during the budget year the Seimas may change the budget
and that it shall be changed according to the same procedure by
which it was drafted, adopted and approved. This constitutional
provision also means that the constitutional powers to prepare
the draft amendment to the budget of the state are established
for the Government.
It needs to be noted that the Constitution does not
contain any legal norms establishing that a draft budget of the
state may be prepared and submitted to the Seimas for
consideration and approval by not the Government but another
state institution or another entity.
Thus the Constitution establishes the powers to prepare
the draft budget of the state for the Government only.
2.2. The constitutional provision that only the Government
enjoys the powers to prepare the draft budget of the state
means that only the Government and no one else has the powers
to estimate, in the draft budget of the state, how much
revenues will be received and from which sources, how much
funds and for what purposes must be appropriated etc. While
estimating for the state expenses in the draft budget of the
state, the Government is bound by the imperative of an open,
just and harmonious civil society, the constitutional principle
of separation of powers as well as other constitutional norms
and principles.
It needs to be noted that the constitutional imperative of
an open, just and harmonious civil society, the necessity to
ensure the constitutional rights and freedoms of persons and to
protect the other values entrenched in the Constitution imply
the duty of the Government, in the course of the preparation of
the draft budget of the state, to take account of the state
functions established in the Constitution, the existing
economic and social situation, the needs and possibilities of
the society and the state, the available and potential
financial resources as well as state liabilities, as well as
other important factors.
From Article 5 of the Constitution and other
constitutional articles which establish the powers of state
institutions exercising state authority and which establish the
principle of separation of powers stems a duty of the
Government to provide for the necessary funds so that the state
institutions that exercise state authority, i.e. the Seimas,
the President of the Republic, the Government, the Judiciary,
would be guaranteed the independence, that the balance of
powers might be ensured, and that the said institutions might
perform the functions established for them in the Constitution
and laws.
The Government, while preparing the draft budget of the
state, must take account of the amounts of appropriations from
the state budget, which have been presented from the other
institutions, pointed out in Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the
Constitution, exercising state authority, i.e. from the Seimas,
the President of the Republic, the Judiciary, and which are
needed to perform the functions of these institutions
established in the Constitution and laws. The pre-conditions to
violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers
and Article 5 of the Constitution would be created, if the
draft budget of the state prepared by the Government provided
for considerably less appropriations for the Seimas, the
President of the Republic, the Judiciary than they are needed
so that the institutions exercising state authority might
perform the functions established for them in the Constitution
and laws and that the independence of these state institutions
exercising state authority, the balance of powers, and their
independence from the Government as an institution of the
executive would be guaranteed.
The Government shall implement laws (Item 2 of Article 94
of the Constitution). From the provision of Paragraph 2 of
Article 131 of the Constitution that expenditures established
by laws may not be reduced as long as these laws are not
amended, a duty arises for the Government, in the course of the
preparation of the draft budget of the state, to estimate the
expenditures that are provided in the said laws (Constitutional
Court ruling of 14 January 2002).
2.3. The Constitutional Court, while construing the
provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution
that expenditures established by laws may not be reduced as
long as these laws are not amended, held that the laws
specified in Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution
that provide for certain expenditures are not laws that would
substitute for or change the law on the state budget. Such laws
can only provide for expenditures necessary in order to achieve
a defined, generally important goal over a certain period of
time established by law, provided these needs cannot be
satisfied in one budget year. Such laws may not provide for
funds necessary for the execution of routine functions of the
state, for funds necessary to finance every-day needs of the
society, such laws may not regulate the relations, which, under
the Constitution, may be regulated by the law on the state
budget only. In the same ruling, the Constitutional Court
emphasised that laws providing for certain expenditures cannot
establish such legal regulation that would deny the
Government's constitutional powers to form the state budget for
the budget year and the Seimas' constitutional powers to
approve the state budget for the budget year specifically.
Otherwise, the constitutional concept of the budget year would
be distorted, the constitutional institute of the budget year
would lose its sense, the constitutional powers of the
Government to prepare the draft budget of the state and the
constitutional powers of the Seimas to approve the state budget
for the budget year, while taking into consideration the
existing social and economic situation, the needs and
possibilities of the society and the state, the available or
potential financial resources and the liabilities of the state,
as well as other important factors, would be denied.
3. The petitioner doubts whether the disputed provisions
of the laws and of the Statute of the Seimas are in compliance
with Article 5 of the Constitution.
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.
The scope of powers shall be defined by the Constitution.
Institutions of power shall serve the people."
The Constitutional Court has held in its rulings more than
once that this article of the Constitution, as well as the
other constitutional articles providing for the powers of the
state institutions exercising state authority, establishes the
principle of separation of powers. Under the Constitution, the
legislative, executive and judicial powers must be separated,
sufficiently independent, however, there must be a balance
among them. Each state institution is granted its
purpose-consistent competence the concrete content of which
depends on the place of that state power in the overall system
of powers as well as its relation to the other powers. Since
the Constitution directly establishes the powers of each
particular institution, one institution may not take over the
functions of another, it may not transfer or waive them, and
these powers may not be changed or restricted by law.
In its ruling of 14 January 2002, the Constitutional Court
held that the constitutional concept of the state budget
implies a presumption that the drafting (forming) of the state
budget, its consideration in the Seimas and its approval by
law, as well as its implementation, are separate steps of the
budgetary process. It was also held in the same ruling that
while drafting the state budget as well as while considering
and approving it, the powers of the Seimas as a legislative
body and the powers of the Government as an executive body are
separated; the constitutional principle of the separation of
powers has to be ensured in this area.
In the context of the case at issue, it needs to be noted
that under the Constitution the Seimas may not establish any
legal regulation restricting or denying the powers of the
Government established in the Constitution to prepare the draft
budget of the state. If the law denied or restricted the powers
established in the Constitution for the Government to prepare
the draft budget of the state, the constitutional principle of
separation of powers would be denied, thus Article 5 of the
Constitution as well.
4. According to the petitioner, the disputed provisions of
laws and of the Statute of the Seimas conflict with the
constitutional principle of a law-governed state.
The Constitutional Court has held in its rulings for more
than once that the principle of a law-governed state implies,
along with the other requirements, that the Constitution has
the supreme legal power and that the laws, governmental
resolutions and other legal acts must be in conformity with the
Constitution, that the institutions exercising sate authority
and other state institutions must act on the basis of law and
in compliance with law.
As it has been mentioned, the principle of separation of
powers is enshrined in the Constitution. In the context of the
case at issue it needs to be noted that the principle of a
law-governed state also implies that the institutions
exercising state authority may not exceed the powers
established for them in the Constitution, and that one
institution of state authority may not interfere with the
powers of another institution of state authority, which are
established for the latter in the Constitution.
Thus, after the Constitution had established the powers
only to the Government to prepare the draft budget of the
state, then no other state institution, no other entity may
interfere with these powers.
5. According to the petitioner, the disputed provisions of
the aforementioned laws and of the Statute of the Seimas
conflict with Item 14 of Article 67 and Paragraph 1 of Article
131 of the Constitution.
Item 14 of Article 67 of the Constitution provides that
the Seimas shall approve the draft budget of the state. Under
Paragraph 1 of Article 131 of the Constitution, the draft
budget of the state shall be considered by the Seimas, and
shall be approved by law by the beginning of the new budget
year.
Thus Item 14 of Article 67 and Paragraph 1 of Article 131
of the Constitution establish as to what entity is empowered to
approve the draft budget of the state: under the Constitution,
only the Seimas is empowered to do so.
Under the Constitution, the approval of the draft budget
of the state (enactment of the law on the state budget) is the
final point of the formation of the budget. The constitutional
powers of the Seimas to approve the draft budget of the state
also include the powers of the Seimas to provide for the
financial resources of the state budgetary revenues, the
estimated state budgetary revenues and their amounts as well as
the expenditures of the state budget, the entities to which the
finances from the state budged are allocated, the amounts of
the appropriations etc.
The Seimas may not waive the powers established to it by
the Constitution to approve the draft budget of the state or
transfer these powers to other state institutions, while the
latter may not take over these powers from the Seimas.
Otherwise, the constitutional powers of the Seimas to approve
the draft budget of the state would be denied: thus the
constitutional principle of the separation of powers would be
denied and Article 5 of the Constitution would be violated.
While considering and approving the budget of the state,
the Seimas is also bound by the constitutional imperative of an
open, just and harmonious civil society, the principle of
separation of powers, as well as the other norms and principles
of the Constitution. It needs to be noted that the
constitutional imperative of an open, just and harmonious civil
society, the necessity to guarantee the constitutional rights
and freedoms of persons and to protect other values entrenched
in the Constitution imply the duty of the Seimas, in the course
of the consideration and approval of the state budget, to take
account of the functions of the state which are established in
the Constitution, of the existing social and economic
situation, the needs and possibilities of the society and the
state, the available or potential financial resources and the
liabilities of the state, as well as other important factors.
A duty of the Seimas arises from Article 5 and the other
articles of the Constitution which establish the powers of the
state institutions exercising state authority and which
enshrine the constitutional principle of separation of powers,
while the Seimas considers and approves the draft budget of the
state, to provide the needed funds for the state institutions
exercising state authority, i.e. the Seimas, the President of
the Republic, the Government, the Judiciary, so that the
constitutionally established independence of these state
institutions exercising state authority and the balance of
powers would be guaranteed and that these institutions might
perform the functions established for them in the Constitution
and laws.
The Seimas is bound not only by the Constitution, but also
by the laws that it has passed. 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. If
certain laws provide for certain expenditures, the Seimas,
while considering and approving the draft budget of the state,
must establish in the draft budget the expenditures provided
for in the said laws.
Under Article 129 of the Constitution, the budget year
shall begin on the 1st of January and shall end on the 31st of
December. The constitutional right and duty of the Seimas
follows from this constitutional provision to approve the state
budget for the budget year only.
III
On the compliance of Article 39 of the Law on the Health
System with Article 5, Item 14 of Article 67, Item 4 of Article
94, Article 130, Paragraph 1 of Article 131 of the Constitution
and the constitutional principle of a law-governed state.
1. Article 39 of the Law on the Health System provides:
"The base amount of the financing of the Lithuanian National
Health System activities including the funds of state budget
and municipal budgets and the funds of the compulsory health
insurance fund budget must account for not less than 5% of the
value of the gross domestic product each year."
2. The health of an individual and the society is one of
the most important values of the society. Paragraph 1 of
Article 53 of the Constitution provides that the state shall
take care of people's health and shall guarantee medical aid
and services in the event of sickness. Under Paragraph 1 of
Article 53 of the Constitution, the procedure for providing
medical aid to citizens free of charge at state medical
facilities shall be established by law.
3. Under Article 39 of the Law on the Health System, the
base amount of the financing of the health system which must
account for not less than 5% of the value of the gross domestic
product each year should consist of the funds provided for the
said purposes in state budget and municipal budgets and in the
compulsory health insurance fund budget. Thus, this article
prescribes a rule that, in order to finance the health system,
each year the state budget and municipal budgets must provide
for a certain portion of expenditures which is not less than
that set in advance (expressed in proportional portion of the
gross domestic product); the amount of the said portion depends
on the value of the gross domestic product in the respective
year, and on the amount of the compulsory health insurance fund
budget.
4. While determining whether Article 39 of the Law on the
Health System is in compliance with the Constitution, one must,
first of all, elucidate whether the legal regulation
established in this article, under which each year a certain
portion of expenditures ought to be allocated to finance the
health system, which is not less than that set in advance, is
in compliance with the constitutional concept of the laws that
may provide for expenditures which may not be reduced as long
as the said laws are not amended, as pointed out in Paragraph 2
of Article 131 of the Constitution.
5. As it has been mentioned, it is not permitted to
establish such legal regulation by the laws indicated in
Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution which would deny
the constitutional right and duty of the Government to prepare
the state budget for the budget year and the constitutional
right and duty of the Seimas to approve the state budget for
the budget year, while taking account of the existing social
and economic situation, the needs and possibilities of the
society and the state, the available or potential financial
resources and the liabilities of the state, as well as other
important factors. The laws specified in Paragraph 2 of Article
131 of the Constitution can only provide for expenditures
necessary in order to achieve a defined, generally important
goal over a certain period of time established by law, provided
these needs cannot be satisfied in one budget year. Such laws
may not provide for funds necessary for the execution of
routine functions of the state, for funds necessary to finance
every-day needs of the society (Constitutional Court ruling of
14 January 2002).
6. Article 39 of the Law on the Health System establishes
as to how many funds expressed in the proportional portion of
the gross domestic product value must be allocated to finance
the national health system activities. The formula "the amount
of the financing of the national health system" employed in
Article 39 of the Law on the Health System shows that this
article prescribes as to how many funds ought to be allocated
to one of the sectors financed by the state, i.e. the national
health system activities. This article does not define any
concrete objectives to be achieved during the prescribed time
period by allocating the funds pointed out in the said law. The
formula "the amount of the financing of the national health
system" is to be assessed as the one establishing expenditures
to finance every-day needs of the society, i.e. the health
system. Financing of the national health system activities is a
routine function and duty of the state.
Thus the legal regulation established in Article 39 of the
Law on the Health System is not in line with the constitutional
concept of the laws that may provide for expenditures which may
not be reduced as long as the said laws are not amended, as
pointed out in Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution.
It needs to be noted that Article 39 of the Law on the
Health System regulates the relations which, according to the
constitutional concept of the state budget, may be regulated by
the law on the state budget only. After the Law on the Health
System has established that every year not less than a certain
portion of the national budget and municipal budgets' funds
must be allocated to finance the national health system
activities, pre-conditions are created to deny the
constitutional concept of the budget year, as well as the time
limit of the budget year established in Article 129 of the
Constitution.
Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Article 39 of the Law on the Health System
conflicts 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 as well as
Article 129 of the Constitution.
7. After Article 39 of the Law on the Health System has
established that every year not less than a certain portion of
the national budget and municipal budgets' funds, which is not
less than that set in advance (expressed in proportional
portion of the gross domestic product), must be allocated to
finance the national health system activities, the Government,
in the course of the preparation of the draft budget of the
state for a certain year, must provide for the amount of
allocations to finance the health system activities, which is
established in Article 39 of the Law on the Health System. Such
legal regulation restricts the constitutional powers of the
Government, in the course of the preparation of the draft
budget of the state for a certain year, to take into
consideration the existing social and economic situation, the
needs and possibilities of the society and the state, the
available or potential financial resources and the liabilities
of the state, as well as other important factors.
Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Article 39 of the Law on the Health System
conflicts with the provision of Item 4 of Article 94 of the
Constitution that the Government shall prepare the draft budget
of the state, and the provision of Article 130 of the
Constitution that the Government shall prepare the draft budget
of the state.
8. Article 5 of the Constitution provides that the scope
of powers shall be defined by the Constitution. It has been
mentioned, that in this article as well as the other articles
establishing the powers of the institutions exercising state
authority the principle of separation of powers is entrenched,
which also means that after the Constitution has directly
established the powers of a particular institution of state
authority, then a certain institution of state authority may
not take over such powers from another institution. It also
means that such powers may not be changed or restricted by law.
Having held that the laws restrict the powers ascribed to a
particular institution of state authority by the Constitution,
it must be held, alongside, that Article 5 of the Constitution
and the constitutional principle of separation of powers are
violated.
The Constitution has the supreme legal power. The laws,
resolutions of the Government and other legal acts must be in
conformity with the Constitution. The institutions exercising
state authority as well as other state institutions must act on
the basis of the Constitution and in compliance with it. If it
is held that the laws, resolutions of the Government or other
legal acts disregard the said requirements, one is to hold,
alongside, that the constitutional principle of a law-governed
state is being violated.
It has been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court that Article 39 of the Law on the Health System conflicts
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, the provision of
Item 4 of Article 94 of the Constitution that the Government
shall prepare the draft budget of the state, the provision of
Article 130 of the Constitution that the Government shall
prepare the draft budget of the state, and Article 129 thereof.
Alongside, one is to hold that Article 39 of the Law on the
Health System conflicts with Article 5 of the Constitution, the
constitutional principle of separation of powers, and the
constitutional principle of a law-governed state.
9. Item 14 of Article 67 of the Constitution provides that
the Seimas shall approve the state budget. Paragraph 1 of
Article 131 of the Constitution provides that the draft budget
of the state shall be considered by the Seimas, and shall be
approved by law by the beginning of the new budget year.
It has been mentioned that, under Paragraph 2 of Article
131 of the Constitution, expenditures established by law may
not be reduced as long as said laws are not amended, therefore,
if certain laws provide for certain expenditures, the Seimas,
while considering and approving the sate budget, must establish
the expenditures which are provided for in the said laws.
Article 39 of the Law on the Health System provides that
the amount of the financing of the national health system
including the funds of state budget and municipal budgets and
the funds of the compulsory health insurance fund budget must
account for not less than 5% of the value of the gross domestic
product each year. Thus, according to Article 39 of the Law on
the Health System, each year certain amount of expenditures
must be provided for in the state budget and municipal budgets
which is not less than that set in advance (expressed in
proportional portion of the gross domestic product), the amount
of which depends on the value of the gross domestic product in
the respective year, and on the amount of the compulsory health
insurance fund budget in the respective year.
10. It has been mentioned that the Seimas is bound not
only by the Constitution, but also by the laws that it has
enacted. Under the Constitution, the laws may establish legal
regulation defining the implementation of the powers of the
Seimas and thus binding the Seimas, however, the Seimas is not
absolutely free to establish any bindings for itself by laws:
by binding itself with laws the Seimas may not violate the
Constitution. In the context of the case at issue it needs to
be noted that 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 means that the
Seimas may enact laws providing for certain expenditures and,
as long as the said laws are not amended, it may bind itself by
these laws at the time of the consideration and approval of the
draft budget of the state. However, while considering and
approving the draft budget of the state, the Seimas may bind
itself not by any laws but only by such which would be in line
with the constitutional concept of the aforementioned laws.
11. It has already been held in this Ruling of the
Constitutional Court that Article 39 of the Law on the Health
System is not line with the constitutional concept of the laws
pointed out in Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution
which provide for certain expenditures that may not be reduced
as long as the said laws are not amended.
Thus, Article 39 of the Law on the Health System restricts
the powers of the Seimas to approve the state budget as
provided for in Item 14 of Article 67 and Paragraph 1 of
Article 131 of the Constitution.
Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Article 39 of the Law on the Health System
conflicts with the provision of Item 14 of Article 67 of the
Constitution that the Seimas shall approve the state budget and
Paragraph 1 of Article 131 of the Constitution.
12. The Constitutional Court notes that the conclusion
that Article 39 of the Law on the Health System conflicts with
the Constitution may not be interpreted as prohibiting the
Government, when it is preparing the draft budget of the state,
or as prohibiting the Seimas, when it is considering and
approving the state budget, to provide for the funds to finance
the national health system activities which would comprise 5%
of the gross domestic product value. In case of need, one may
allocate the funds to finance the national health system
activities, which might comprise more than 5% of the gross
domestic product value. However, the amount of the funds to be
allocated to finance the national health system activities in
each budget year must be established not by defining a portion
of funds set in advance but in the course of the preparation
and approval of the state budget of a respective year.
IV
On the compliance of the Law on the Long-term Financing of
Science and Education with Article 5, Item 14 of Article 67,
Item 4 of Article 94, Article 130, Paragraph 1 of Article 131
of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a
law-governed state.
1. The Law on the Long-term Financing of Science and
Education provides:
"The Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, taking account
of the importance of science and education for the Lithuanian
economy, the welfare of the people and stability of the state,
holding that not enough funds from the state budget and from
the municipal budgets have been allocated to science and
education, comprehending the importance of a more effective
system of science, studies and education, passes this Law.
Article 1. State Budget Appropriations for Science and
Studies.
The following proportional indicators shall be established
to finance science and studies:
1) not less than 1.35 percent of the gross domestic
product shall be allocated in 2001;
2) not less than 1.5 percent of the gross domestic product
shall be allocated in 2002;
3) not less than 1.75 percent of the gross domestic
product shall be allocated in 2003;
4) not less than 2 percent of the gross domestic product
shall be allocated in 2004.
Article 2. State Budget and Municipal Budgets'
Appropriations for Education.
The following proportional indicators shall be established
to finance education: not less than 6.5 percent of the gross
domestic product shall be allocated to finance education in
2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.
Article 3. Proposals for the Government.
To propose that the Government, when it prepares
respective draft laws on the approval of the financial
indicators of the 2001-2004 state budgets and budgets of local
governments, take into consideration the provisions of this Law
and guarantee that, by gradually increasing the financing of
science, studies and education, the whole system of the
establishments of science, studies and education be reformed."
2. Education and science are constitutional values. Under
the Constitution, the state has the duty to allocate funds to
finance education and science.
3. Article 1 of the Law on the Long-term Financing of
Science and Education provides for the indicators of the
appropriations of the sate budget for science and studies;
these indicators are expressed in proportional portions of the
gross domestic product. Article 2 of the same law provides for
the indicators of the appropriations of the sate budget and
municipal budgets for education; these indicators are expressed
in proportional portions of the gross domestic product. Article
3 of the same law contains the provision "to propose that the
Government, when it prepares respective draft laws on the
approval of the financial indicators of the 2001-2004 state
budgets and budgets of local governments, take into
consideration the provisions of this Law".
4. While deciding whether the Law on the Long-term
Financing of Science and Education is in compliance with the
Constitution, one must, first of all, elucidate whether the
legal regulation entrenched in this law under which each year a
certain portion of expenditures ought to be allocated to
finance science, studies and education, which is not less than
that set in advance (expressed in proportional portions of the
gross domestic product), is in compliance with the
constitutional concept of the laws that may provide for
expenditures which may not be reduced as long as the said laws
are not amended, as pointed out in Paragraph 2 of Article 131
of the Constitution.
5. As it has been mentioned, the laws specified in
Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution can only provide
for expenditures necessary in order to achieve a defined,
generally important goal over a certain period of time
established by law, provided these needs cannot be satisfied in
one budget year. Such laws may not provide for funds necessary
for the execution of routine functions of the state, for funds
necessary to finance every-day needs of the society.
6. The title "State Budget Appropriations for Science and
Studies" of Article 1 of the Law on the Long-term Financing of
Science and Education and the formula "the following
proportional indicators shall be established to finance science
and studies" employed in the same article show that the article
provides how many funds of the state budget (expressed in
proportional portions of the gross domestic product) must be
allocated to one sector financed by the state, i.e. to science
and studies. The title "State Budget and Municipal Budgets'
Appropriations for Education" of Article 2 of this law and the
formula "the following proportional indicators shall be
established to finance education" employed in the same article
show that the article provides how many funds of the state
budget and municipal budgets (expressed in proportional
portions of the gross domestic product) must be allocated to
one sector financed by the state and local governments, i.e. to
education.
The Law the on Long-term Financing of Science and
Education does not contain any concretely defined objectives to
be achieved during the time period established in the same law
by allocating the funds provided for in the law. The said law
provides for the funds designated for the every-day needs of
the society, i.e. financing of science and studies as well as
education. The financing of science and studies as well as
education is a routine function and a constant duty of the
state.
Thus, the legal regulation established in Articles 1 and 2
of the Law on the Long-term Financing of Science and Education
is not in conformity with the constitutional concept of the
laws that provide for expenditures which may not be reduced as
long as the said laws are not amended, as pointed out in
Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution.
The expenses established in Articles 1 and 2 of the Law on
the Long-term Financing of Science and Education are expenses
for the implementation of the routine functions of the state
and for financing of the every-day needs of the society. The
said articles regulate the relations which, under the
constitutional concept of the sate budget, may be regulated by
the law on the sate budget only. After it had been established
in Article 1 of the Law on the Long-term Financing of Science
and Education that in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 a certain
portion of expenditures from the state budget (expressed in
proportional portions of the gross domestic product) ought to
be allocated to finance science and studies, which is not less
than that set in advance, and in Article 2 of the same law that
in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 a certain portion of expenditures
from the state budget (expressed in proportional portions of
the gross domestic product) ought to be allocated to finance
education, which is not less than that set in advance,
pre-conditions were created to deny the constitutional concept
of the budget year and the time period of the budget year
specified in Article 129 of the Constitution.
Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Articles 1 and 2 of the Law on the Long-term
Financing of Science and Education conflict 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, and with Article 129 of the
Constitution.
7. From 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 a duty arises for
the Government in the course of the preparation of the draft
budget of the state to provide for as many funds as established
in the laws providing for such funds. Articles 1 and 2 as well
as the provision "to propose that the Government, when it
prepares respective draft laws on the approval of the financial
indicators of the 2001-2004 state budgets and budgets of local
governments, take into consideration the provisions of this
law" of Article 3 of the Law on the Long-term Financing of
Science and Education set a duty for the Government in the
course of the preparation of draft laws on approving the
financial indicators of the 2001-2004 state budgets and budgets
of local governments to provide for the funds established
according to the proportional indicators provided for in
Articles 1 and 2 of the Law on the Long-term Financing of
Science and Education. Such legal regulation restricts the
constitutional powers of the Government to prepare the draft
budget of the state for the budget year while taking account of
the existing social and economic situation, needs and
possibilities of the state and society, available or potential
financial resources, state liabilities and other important
factors.
Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Articles 1 and 2 as well as the provision "to
propose that the Government, when it prepares respective draft
laws on the approval of the financial indicators of the
2001-2004 state budgets and budgets of local governments, take
into consideration the provisions of this law" of Article 3 of
the Law on the Long-term Financing of Science and Education
conflict with the provision of Item 4 of Article 94 of the
Constitution that the Government shall prepare the draft budget
of the state and the provision of Article 130 of the
Constitution that the Government shall prepare the draft budget
of the state.
8. It has been held in this Constitutional Court ruling
that Articles 1 and 2 as well as the provision "to propose that
the Government, when it prepares respective draft laws on the
approval of the financial indicators of the 2001-2004 state
budgets and budgets of local governments, take into
consideration the provisions of this law" of Article 3 of the
Law on the Long-term Financing of Science and Education
restrict the constitutional powers of the Government to prepare
the draft budget of the state and, therefore, conflict with the
provision of Item 4 of Article 94 of the Constitution that the
Government shall prepare the draft budget of the state and the
provision of Article 130 of the Constitution that the
Government shall prepare the draft budget of the state.
Alongside, it must be held that Articles 1 and 2 as well as the
provision "to propose that the Government, when it prepares
respective draft laws on the approval of the financial
indicators of the 2001-2004 state budgets and budgets of local
governments, take into consideration the provisions of this
law" of Article 3 of the Law on the Long-term Financing of
Science and Education conflict with Article 5 of the
Constitution, the constitutional principle of separation of
powers and the constitutional principle of a law-governed
state.
9. Item 14 of Article 67 of the Constitution provides that
the Seimas shall approve the state budget. Paragraph 1 of
Article 131 of the Constitution provides that the draft budget
of the state shall be considered by the Seimas, and shall be
approved by law by the beginning of the new budget year.
It has been mentioned that the Seimas, while binding
itself with laws, may not violate the Constitution.
It has been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court that Articles 1 and 2 of the Law on the Long-term
Financing of Science and Education conflict with the
constitutional concept of the laws that may provide for
expenditures which may not be reduced as long as the said laws
are not amended, as pointed out in Paragraph 2 of Article 131
of the Constitution.
Thus, Articles 1 and 2 of the Law on the Long-term
Financing of Science and Education restrict the powers of the
Seimas to approve the state budget which are established in
Item 14 of Article 67 and Paragraph 1 of Article 131 of the
Constitution.
Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Articles 1 and 2 of the Law on the Long-term
Financing of Science and Education conflict with the provision
of Item 14 of Article 67 of the Constitution that the Seimas
shall approve the state budget as well as Paragraph 1 of
Article 131 of the Constitution.
10. The conformity of the provision "to propose that the
Government, when it prepares respective draft laws on the
approval of the financial indicators of the 2001-2004 state
budgets and budgets of local governments, take into
consideration the provisions of this law" of Article 3 of the
Law on the Long-term Financing of Science and Education with
Item 14 of Article 67 and Paragraph 1 of Article 131 of the
Constitution is to be assessed in a different manner.
The disputed provision of the Law on the Long-term
Financing of Science and Education is addressed to the
Government. This provision does not restrict or deny the powers
established for the Seimas in Item 14 of Article 67 and
Paragraph 1 of Article 131 of the Constitution to approve the
state budget.
Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that the provision "to propose that the Government,
when it prepares respective draft laws on the approval of the
financial indicators of the 2001-2004 state budgets and budgets
of local governments, take into consideration the provisions of
this law" of Article 3 of the Law on the Long-term Financing of
Science and Education is in compliance with the provision of
Item 14 of Article 67 of the Constitution that the Seimas shall
approve the state budget as well as with Paragraph 1 of Article
131 of the Constitution.
11. The Constitutional Court notes that the conclusion
that Articles 1 and 2 as well the disputed provision of Article
3 of the Law on the Long-term Financing of Science and
Education conflict with the Constitution may not be interpreted
as prohibiting the Government in the course of the preparation
of the draft budget of the state and as prohibiting the Seimas
in the course of the consideration and approval of the state
budget to provide for the funds in the budget to finance
science, studies and education which would comprise an amount
not less than the portion of the gross domestic product as
established in the Law on the Long-term Financing of Science
and Education. If necessary, the funds may be allocated to
finance science, studies and education that would comprise even
a bigger portion of the gross domestic product than established
in the said law. However, the fact as to how many funds ought
to be allocated to finance science, studies and education must
be established by preparing and approving the state budget for
a corresponding year, but not by defining funds set in advance.
V
On the compliance of Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law
on the Structure of the Budget and Paragraph 1 of Article 172
of the Statute of the Seimas with Article 5, Item 14 of Article
67, Item 4 of Article 94, Article 130 and Paragraph 1 of
Article 131 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional
principle of a law-governed state.
1. Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the Structure
of the Budget provides: "The Government, while preparing the
draft law on approving the financial indicators of the state
budget and budgets of local governments for a corresponding
year and submitting it to the Seimas, on the proposal of the
Board of the Seimas, shall include into the draft the amounts
of appropriations for the Office of the Seimas which have been
approved by the Board of the Seimas for the programmes of the
Office of the Seimas according to the expenditure estimates."
Under Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the Statute of the
Seimas, the Government, while preparing the draft law on
approving the financial indicators of the state budget and
budgets of local governments for a corresponding year and
submitting it to the Seimas, on the proposal of the Board of
the Seimas, shall include into the draft the amounts of
appropriations for the Office of the Seimas which have been
approved by the Board of the Seimas for the programmes of the
Office of the Seimas according to the expenditure estimates.
2. While deciding whether Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the
Law on the Structure of the Budget and Paragraph 1 of Article
172 of the Statute of the Seimas are in compliance with the
Constitution, the fact is of essential importance that, under
Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the Structure of the
Budget and Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the Statute of the
Seimas, the Government, while preparing the draft law on
approving the financial indicators of the state budget and
budgets of local governments for a corresponding year and
submitting it to the Seimas, must include into the draft the
amounts of appropriations for the Office of the Seimas which
have been presented by the Board of the Seimas.
3. It has been mentioned that, under the Constitution, the
powers to prepare the draft budget of the state are established
for the Government, and that the powers to prepare the draft
budget of the state mean that only the Government has the
powers to estimate in the draft budget of the state how many
funds must be received and their sources, how many and what
funds must be allocated for particular purposes etc.
After Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the
Structure of the Budget and Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the
Statute of the Seimas had established that the Government,
while preparing the draft law on approving the financial
indicators of the state budget and budgets of local governments
for a corresponding year and submitting it to the Seimas, on
the proposal of the Board of the Seimas, must include into the
draft the amounts of appropriations for the Office of the
Seimas which have been presented by the Board of the Seimas,
the constitutional powers of the Government to prepare the
draft budget of the state were restricted.
Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the
Structure of the Budget and the provision of Paragraph 1 of
Article 172 of the Statute of the Seimas that the Government,
while preparing the draft law on approving the financial
indicators of the state budget and budgets of local governments
for a corresponding year and submitting it to the Seimas, on
the proposal of the Board of the Seimas, shall include into the
draft the amounts of appropriations for the Office of the
Seimas which have been approved by the Board of the Seimas for
the programmes of the Office of the Seimas according to the
expenditure estimates conflict with the provision of Item 4 of
Article 94 of the Constitution that the Government shall
prepare the draft budget of the state and the provision of
Article 130 of the Constitution that the Government shall
prepare the draft budget of the state.
4. It has been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court that Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the
Structure of the Budget and the provision of Paragraph 1 of
Article 172 of the Statute of the Seimas restrict the
constitutional powers of the Government to prepare the draft
budget of the state, therefore, they conflict with the
provision of Item 4 of Article 94 of the Constitution that the
Government shall prepare the draft budget of the state and the
provision of Article 130 of the Constitution that the
Government shall prepare the draft budget of the state.
Alongside, it must be held that Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of
the Law on the Structure of the Budget and the provision of
Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the Statute of the Seimas that
the Government, while preparing the draft law on approving the
financial indicators of the state budget and budgets of local
governments for a corresponding year and submitting it to the
Seimas, on the proposal of the Board of the Seimas, shall
include into the draft the amounts of appropriations for the
Office of the Seimas which have been approved by the Board of
the Seimas for the programmes of the Office of the Seimas
according to the expenditure estimates conflict with Article 5
of the Constitution, the constitutional principle of separation
of powers and the constitutional principle of a law-governed
state.
5. Item 14 of Article 67 of the Constitution provides that
the Seimas shall approve the state budget. Paragraph 1 of
Article 131 of the Constitution provides that the draft budget
of the state shall be considered by the Seimas, and shall be
approved by law by the beginning of the new budget year.
Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the Structure of
the Budget and the disputed provision of Paragraph 1 of Article
172 of the Statute of the Seimas provide that the Government
must include the amounts of appropriations for the Office of
the Seimas which have been presented by the Board of the Seimas
into the prepared draft law on approving the financial
indicators of the state budget and budgets of local
governments.
The disputed provisions do not restrict or deny the powers
of the Seimas to approve the state budget which are established
in Item 14 of Article 67 and Paragraph 1 of Article 131 of the
Constitution.
It needs to be noted that there is no reason to recognise
Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the Structure of the
Budget and the disputed provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 172
of the Statute of the Seimas as conflicting with Item 14 of
Article 67 and Paragraph 1 of Article 131 of the Constitution
also due to the fact that the Seimas, enjoying the
constitutional powers to consider and approve the state budget,
is not bound by the amounts of appropriations for the Office of
the Seimas which are provided for in the draft budget of the
state that is prepared by the Government and submitted to the
Seimas: the Seimas may change the amounts of appropriations
provided for in the draft budget of the state.
Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law on the
Structure of the Budget and the provision of Paragraph 1 of
Article 172 of the Statute of the Seimas that the Government,
while preparing the draft law on approving the financial
indicators of the state budget and budgets of local governments
for a corresponding year and submitting it to the Seimas, on
the proposal of the Board of the Seimas, shall include into the
draft the amounts of appropriations for the Office of the
Seimas which have been approved by the Board of the Seimas for
the programmes of the Office of the Seimas according to the
expenditure estimates are in compliance with the provision of
Item 14 of Article 67 of the Constitution that the Seimas shall
approve the state budget and Paragraph 1 of Article 131 of the
Constitution.
Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 53, 54, 55, 56 and
Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania has passed the following
ruling:
1. To recognise that Article 39 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Health System conflicts with Article 5 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision of
Item 14 of Article 67 thereof that the Seimas shall approve the
state budget, the provision of Item 4 of Article 94 thereof
that the Government shall prepare the draft budget of the
state, Article 129 thereof, the provision of Article 130
thereof that the Government shall prepare the draft budget of
the state, Paragraph 1 of Article 131, and the provision of
Paragraph 2 of Article 131 thereof that expenditures
established by law may not be reduced as long as said laws are
not amended, as well as with the constitutional principle of
separation of powers and the constitutional principle of a
law-governed state.
2. To recognise that Articles 1 and 2 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Long-term Financing of Science and
Education conflict with Article 5 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, the provision of Item 14 of Article 67
thereof that the Seimas shall approve the state budget, the
provision of Item 4 of Article 94 thereof that the Government
shall prepare the draft budget of the state, Article 129
thereof, the provision of Article 130 thereof that the
Government shall prepare the draft budget of the state,
Paragraph 1 of Article 131, and the provision of Paragraph 2 of
Article 131 thereof that expenditures established by law may
not be reduced as long as said laws are not amended, as well as
with the constitutional principle of separation of powers and
the constitutional principle of a law-governed state.
3. To recognise that the provision "to propose that the
Government, when it prepares respective draft laws on the
approval of the financial indicators of the 2001-2004 state
budgets and budgets of local governments, take into
consideration the provisions of this law" of Article 3 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Long-term Financing of Science
and Education conflicts with Article 5 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania, the provision of Item 4 of Article
94 thereof that the Government shall prepare the draft budget
of the state, the provision of Article 130 thereof that the
Government shall prepare the draft budget of the state, as well
as with the constitutional principle of separation of powers
and the constitutional principle of a law-governed state.
4. To recognise that Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Structure of the Budget
conflicts with Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, the provision of Item 4 of Article 94 thereof that
the Government shall prepare the draft budget of the state, the
provision of Article 130 thereof that the Government shall
prepare the draft budget of the state, as well as with the
constitutional principle of separation of powers and the
constitutional principle of a law-governed state.
5. To recognise that the provision "the Government, while
preparing the draft law on approving the financial indicators
of the state budget and budgets of local governments for a
corresponding year and submitting it to the Seimas, on the
proposal of the Board of the Seimas, shall include into the
draft the amounts of appropriations for the Office of the
Seimas which have been approved by the Board of the Seimas for
the programmes of the Office of the Seimas according to the
expenditure estimates" of Paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the
Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania conflicts
with Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, the provision of Item 4 of Article 94 thereof that
the Government shall prepare the draft budget of the state, the
provision of Article 130 thereof that the Government shall
prepare the draft budget of the state, as well as with the
constitutional principle of separation of powers and the
constitutional principle of a law-governed state.
6. To dismiss the case in the part concerning the
compliance of Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
the State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture 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.