Lietuviškai
Case No. 47/2001-08/2003-20/2003-32/2003-38/2003
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA LAW ON STATE SOCIAL INSURANCE PENSIONS, THE REPUBLIC
OF LITHUANIA LAW ON STATE PENSIONS, AND THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA LAW "ON THE AMENDMENT AND SUPPLEMENT OF THE REPUBLIC
OF LITHUANIA LAW ON STATE SOCIAL INSURANCE PENSIONS" WITH THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, AS WELL AS ON THE
COMPLIANCE OF ITEM 84 OF THE REGULATIONS OF GRANTING AND
PAYMENT OF STATE SOCIAL INSURANCE PENSIONS AS APPROVED BY
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA RESOLUTION NO. 1156 OF
18 NOVEMBER 1994 WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA AND PARAGRAPH 4 (WORDING OF 18 JULY 1994) OF ARTICLE
45 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON STATE SOCIAL INSURANCE
PENSIONS
3 December 2003
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, Augustinas Normantas, Jonas
Prapiestis, Vytautas Sinkevičius, and Stasys Stačiokas,
with the secretary of the hearing-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of:
the representatives of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, the party concerned, who were Jurgita Meškienė and
Daiva Petrylaitė, senior consultants of the Legal Department of
the Office of the Seimas, the representative of the Government
of the Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned, who was
Svetlana Černuševič, Head of the Pensions' Division of the
Department for Social Insurance and Pensions at the Ministry of
Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania,
pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, on 18
November 2003 in its public hearing heard Case No.
47/2001-08/2003-20/2003-32/2003-38/2003 which originated in the
following petitions:
1) the 10 October 2001 petition of the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate
whether Article 32 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions is not in conflict with the
principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of
law as consolidated in the Preamble to the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, as well as Articles 29 and 52 of the
Constitution;
2) the 5 December 2002 petition of the Supreme
Administrative Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting
to investigate whether Item 84 of the Regulations of Granting
and Payment of State Social Insurance Pensions as approved by
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1156 of
18 November 1994 is not in conflict with Item 2 of Article 94
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph
4 of Article 45 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions;
3) the 15 April 2003 petition of the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate
whether the provisions of Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on State Pensions, which limit the
payment of the total sum of the granted state pensions and
state social insurance pensions to the same person, without
exceeding the 1.5 amount of the statistical average monthly
salary in the economy of the country, which is paid in the
quarter before last that precedes the month when state pension
is paid, are not in conflict with the principle of a state
under the rule of law, which is consolidated in the Preamble to
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as
Articles 23 and 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania;
4) the 28 July 2003 petition of the Supreme Administrative
Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to investigate
whether Articles 1 and 3, Paragraph 2 of Article 6, Item 2 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 17 and Paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions
are not in conflict with Articles 52 and 29 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania;
5) the 8 October 2003 petition of the Supreme
Administrative Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting
to investigate whether Paragraph 2 of Article 48 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions,
by which the same article was supplemented by the 4 July 1995
Republic of Lithuania Law "On the Amendment and Supplement of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions", which established that "while recalculating the
granted pensions, the coefficient of the insured income of a
person shall be not larger than 5", as well as whether Item 4
of the 28 September 1995 the Republic of Lithuania Law "On the
Law on the Amendment and Supplement of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions", whereby
Paragraph 4 (wording of Law No. I-549 of 18 July 1994) of
Article 50 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions, which used to establish that "the amount of
recalculated <...> pension is not limited" was recognised as no
longer valid, is not in conflict with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law and the provision of
Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
that the state shall guarantee the right to receive an old age
pension and the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania concerning the inviolability of
property and protection of the rights of ownership.
By the Constitutional Court decision of 6 May 2003, the 10
October 2001 petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court and the 5 December 2002 petition of the Supreme
Administrative Court of Lithuania were joined into one case and
it was given No. 47/2001-08/03.
By the Constitutional Court decision of 29 October 2003,
the 5 December 2002, 28 July 2003 and 8 October 2003 petitions
of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania and the 10
October 2001 and 15 April 2003 petitions of the Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court were joined into one case and it
was given No. 47/2001-08/2003-20/2003-32/2003-38/2003.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. On 18 July 1994, the Seimas adopted the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions (Official gazette Valstybės žinios,
1994, No. 59-1153).
On 22 December 1994, the Seimas adopted the Law on State
Pensions (Official gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No.
101-2018).
By Item 1 of Resolution No. 1156 "On the Approval of
Regulations of Granting and Payment of State Social Insurance
Pensions" of 18 November 1994, the Government approved the
Regulations of Granting and Payment of State Social Insurance
Pensions (hereinafter also referred to as the Regulations).
2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, investigated an administrative case. The court
suspended the investigation of the case by its ruling and
applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting
to investigate as to whether Article 32 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions was not in conflict with the
principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of
law as consolidated in the Preamble to the Constitution, as
well as Articles 29 and 52 of the Constitution.
3. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the
petitioner, investigated an administrative case. The court
suspended the investigation of the case by its ruling and
applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting
to investigate as to whether Item 84 of the Regulations of
Granting and Payment of State Social Insurance Pensions as
approved by Government Resolution No. 1156 of 18 November 1994
was not in conflict with Item 2 of Article 94 of the
Constitution and Paragraph 4 of Article 45 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions.
4. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, investigated an administrative case. The court
suspended the investigation of the case by its ruling and
applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting
to investigate as to whether the provisions of Paragraph 3 of
Article 3 of the Law on State Pensions, which limit the payment
of the total sum of the granted state pensions and state social
insurance pensions to the same person, without exceeding the
1.5 amount of the statistical average monthly salary in the
economy of the country, which is paid in the quarter before
last that precedes the month when the state pension is paid,
were not in conflict with Articles 23 and 52 of the
Constitution as well as the principle of a state under the rule
of law, which is consolidated in the Preamble to the
Constitution.
5. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the
petitioner, investigated an administrative case. The court
suspended the investigation of the case by its ruling and
applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting
to investigate as to whether Articles 1 and 3, Paragraph 2 of
Article 6, Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 and Paragraph 1
of Article 19 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions
were not in conflict with Articles 52 and 29 of the
Constitution.
6. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the
petitioner, investigated an administrative case. The court
suspended the investigation of the case by its ruling and
applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting
to investigate as to whether Paragraph 2 of Article 48 of the
Law on State Social Insurance Pensions, whereby the same
article was supplemented by the 4 July 1995 Law "On the
Amendment and Supplement of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions", which established that "while
recalculating the granted pensions, the coefficient of the
insured income of a person shall be not larger than 5", as well
as whether Item 4 of the 28 September 1995 of the Law "On the
Amendment and Supplement of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions", whereby Paragraph 4 (wording
of the law of the 18 July 1994) of Article 50 of the Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions, which used to establish that
"the amount of recalculated <...> pension is not limited" had
been recognised as no longer valid, was not in conflict with
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law
and the provision of Article 52 of the Constitution that the
state shall guarantee the right to receive an old age pension
and the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution concerning
the inviolability of property and protection of the right of
ownership.
II
1. The 10 October 2001 petition of the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, is based on the following
arguments.
Article 32 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions
establishes the limitation of the payable disability pensions,
which have been granted to invalids of pensionary age, if
compared to invalids who have not reached the age entitling to
the old age pension.
In the opinion of the petitioner, such limitation of the
amount of the disability pension payable to invalids of
pensionary age violates the principles of equal rights and
non-discrimination of a just civil society and state under the
rule of law. Thus, there exist grounds to assume that the
disputed provisions of the law restrict the equality of social
status of the person before the law and violate the right of
citizens to receive the disability pension, which is guaranteed
by the state. Therefore, the legal regulation which is
established by the disputed provisions is in conflict with the
principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of
law as consolidated in the Preamble to the Constitution, as
well as Article 29 of the Constitution, which consolidates the
principles of equality and non-discrimination, and Article 52
of the Constitution, which consolidates the right of citizens
to receive old age and disability pensions guaranteed by the
state.
2. The 5 December 2002 petition of the Supreme
Administrative Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, is based on
the following arguments.
In the opinion of the petitioner, Item 84 of the
Regulation of Granting and Payment of State Social Insurance
Pensions establishes that persons, who had been granted the
service time pensions prior to 1 January 1995, and who, after
granting of this pension, but not later than until 1 January
1995, had reached the age entitling to an old age pension or
who were invalids, may submit the data concerning their salary
for the time periods specified in Item 82 of the regulations.
The data is necessary for recalculation of the granted pension.
Thus, in the opinion of the petitioner, according to the
requirements of the Regulations, it is possible to recalculate
the service time pension, which had been granted before the
entry into force of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions,
only to the persons who had reached the age entitling to an old
age pension prior to 1 January 1995, while recalculation of the
service time pensions to the persons who reached this age after
that date is not provided for. According to Item 84 of the
Regulations of Granting and Payment of State Social Insurance
Pensions as approved by Government Resolution No. 1156 of 18
November 1994, while taking account of the moment of reaching
the age entitling to an old age pension, different legal
regulation from that provided for by the law is established for
the subsequent payment of the granted pensions for served time
period. Therefore, there exist grounds to assume that the Law
on State Social Insurance Pensions and the Regulations of
Granting and Payment of State Social Insurance Pensions as
approved by the Government regulate the same legal relations in
a different manner. Thus, a doubt arises as to whether Item 84
of the Regulations of Granting and Payment of State Social
Insurance Pensions is in conformity with Paragraph 4 of Article
45 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions. While having
doubts as to the compliance of the Government resolution with
the law, a question of the compliance of this act with the
Constitution arises as well. Under Item 2 of Article 94 of the
Constitution, the Government must execute laws and resolutions
of the Seimas concerning the implementation of laws, as well as
the decrees of the President of the Republic. Item 2 of Article
67 of the Constitution provides that the Seimas shall pass
laws. The Government, while executing the authorisation of the
legislator to establish a certain procedure, may establish only
such legal regulation, which is not in conflict with the laws.
Substatutory legal acts may be adopted in accordance with the
laws and may not be in conflict with them.
In the opinion of the petitioner, Item 84 of the
Regulations of Granting and Payment of State Social Insurance
Pensions as approved by Government Resolution No. 1156 of 18
November 1994 is in conflict with Item 2 of Article 94 of the
Constitution and Paragraph 4 of Article 45 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions.
3. The 15 April 2003 petition of the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, is based on the following
arguments.
The petitioner maintains that the provisions of Paragraph
3 of Article 3 of the Law on State Pensions limit the payment
of the total sum of the granted state pensions and state social
insurance pensions to the same person, without exceeding the
1.5 amount of the statistical average monthly salary in the
economy of the country, which is paid in the quarter before
last that precedes the month when the state pension is paid.
In the opinion of the petitioner, such limitation of the
amount of the state pension to persons, who have been granted
the state pension or state social insurance pension, by not
paying the total sum of them, violates the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law, because the person
loses part of pension payments which belong to him.
Thus, in the opinion of the petitioner, there exist
grounds to assume that the disputed provisions of the law
violate the right of the person to possession and the right of
citizens to receive the whole granted pension, which is
guaranteed by the state, and are in conflict with Articles 23
and 52 of the Constitution, as well as the principle of a state
under the rule of law as consolidated in the Preamble to the
Constitution.
4. The 28 July 2003 petition of the Supreme Administrative
Court of Lithuania is based on the following arguments.
According to the disputed provisions, the granting and
payment of the old age pension depend not only on the
corresponding age of a person and the social insurance period
in general, but also on the social insurance period, which is
determined by a concrete minimum limit, thus the
constitutionality of such a provision is doubtful. Article 52
of the Constitution consolidates the right of each citizen to
social protection and forms of such protection, one of which is
the old age pension. The formulation "the State shall
guarantee" means that the types of pensions and social
assistance guaranteeing the right of citizens to social
protection, which are specified and not specified in Article 52
of the Constitution, must be established precisely by the law,
establishing sufficient means for the implementation and legal
defence of this right. Article 52 of the Constitution provides
for one of the pension types--old age pension, which is the
object of the dispute in the administrative case. This pension
as established by the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social
Insurance, is paid from the funds, which are accumulated on the
basis of social insurance, but the payment of contributions of
social insurance implies the right of a person to receive an
old age pension of the corresponding amount, but this amount
may not depend on the paid social insurance contributions. The
Constitution guarantees the right of every citizen, who has
reached the established age and has paid social insurance
contributions, to receive the pension established by the law.
In the opinion of the petitioner, the condition, which is
established by the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions,
which pre-supposes the necessity to have a minimum social
insurance period, limits the right of a person, who has any
social insurance period, but which is shorter than that
established by the said law, to the social guarantee--old age
pension, which is guaranteed by the state and entrenched in
Article 52 of the Constitution. According to the petitioner,
the disputed provisions of the law, while relating the right of
the person to the old age pension with the minimum state social
insurance period, thus deprive the persons, who have no such
period, of the right to social provision--old age pension,
which is guaranteed by the Constitution, and discriminate them
with respect to other persons, who have the minimum social
insurance period and thus acquire the right to the old age
pension, and this, in the opinion of the petitioner, is in
conflict with the principle of equality of all persons, which
is entrenched in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 of the
Constitution.
5. The 8 October 2003 petition of the Supreme
Administrative Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, is based on
the following arguments.
In the opinion of the petitioner, the persons, to whom
these amendments of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions
have been applied and upon calculation of the coefficient,
which was established not larger than 5, due to such amendments
of the law suffered restrictions of property nature, which had
established that the maximum size of the coefficient of insured
income of the person is 5 and had abolished the rule that the
amount of recalculated pension is not limited, meanwhile, the
compliance of such legal regulation with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law, which consists of
such elements as the protection of legitimate expectations,
legal certainty and legal security, and with the constitutional
provision that the state shall guarantee the right to receive
an old age pension, as well as with the provisions of Article
23 of the Constitution concerning the inviolability of property
and the protection of the right of ownership, is doubtful.
Paragraph 2 of Article 48 of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions, whereby the same article was supplemented
by the 4 July 1995 Law "On the Amendment and Supplement of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions",
which established that "while recalculating the granted
pensions, the coefficient of the insured income of a person
shall be not larger than 5", as well as Item 4 of the 28
September 1995 of the Law "On the Amendment and Supplement of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions", whereby Paragraph 4 (wording of the law of 18 July
1994) of Article 50 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions, which used to establish that "the amount of
recalculated <...> pension is not limited" was recognised as no
longer valid, is in conflict with the constitutional principle
of a state under the rule of law and the provision of Article
52 of the Constitution that the state shall guarantee the right
to receive an old age pension and the provisions of Article 23
of the Constitution concerning the inviolability of property
and protection of rights of ownership.
III
1. In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing written explanations were received
from the representative of the party concerned, the Seimas, who
was Algirdas Sysas, a member of the Seimas. It is maintained in
the explanations that systems of state social insurance
pensions are based on solidarity, when a part of salaries of
the working generation of people is assigned for the payment of
state social insurance pensions. Thus, the balance between
contributions and payments is necessary for successful
functioning of this system, which is possible to achieve only
in case of sufficient contributions to the budget of the State
Social Insurance Fund and corresponding payments, which are
well financially grounded. In the opinion of the representative
of the Seimas, the limitation of the amount of the coefficient
of the insured income has no influence on the right of citizens
to receive an old age pension. The amount of the coefficient of
the insured income influences only the amount of pensions, thus
the disputed provisions of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions concerning the coefficient of the insured income,
which is not larger than 5, are not in conflict with the
Constitution.
2. In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing written explanations were received
from the representative of the party concerned, the Seimas, who
was Jadvyga Andriuškevičiūtė, the chief consultant of the Legal
Department of the Office of the Seimas. It is maintained in the
explanations that the state, while guaranteeing the
constitutional rights of citizens, has established such a
solidarity principle based system, when able-bodied persons
must pay contributions, while the persons who cannot take care
of themselves due to objective reasons are entitled to
assistance. Taking account of the constitutional provisions, it
would be unjust from the social standpoint to allocate some
funds to a person, who is working and has income, if those
funds would be taken from a person who is studying, undergoing
treatment or is unemployed and has no other income except that,
which is received as social payments. In the opinion of the
representative of the party concerned, Article 32 of the Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions is not in conflict with the
Constitution.
3. In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing written explanations were received
from the representative of the party concerned, the Seimas, who
was J. Meškienė, a senior consultant of the Legal Department of
the Office of the Seimas wherein it is maintained that the
principle of a state under the rule of law as entrenched in the
Preamble to the Constitution is to be related with the
principle of protection of legitimate expectations, the essence
of which has been exhaustively revealed in the constitutional
jurisprudence. According to it, the constitutional principle of
the 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, i.e. that the
rights acquired under the valid legal acts will be retained for
the established period of time and will be implemented. The
principle of a state under the rule of law does not negate the
discretion of the legislator to establish the amount of the
pension (as well as the maximum amount of the pensionary
payment or the sum of such payments), as well as the constants
which direct these amounts, therefore Paragraph 3 of Article 3
of the Law on State Pensions is not in conflict with the
Constitution.
4. In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing written explanations were received
from the representative of the party concerned, the Seimas, who
was D. Petrylaitė, a senior consultant of the Legal Department
of the Office of the Seimas. It is maintained in the
explanations that following the restoration of the
independence, the creation of the social insurance system has
been initiated, whereby it was intended to pass from the
"maintenance" which was rendered by the state to the residents,
who cannot work and have no permanent income, to the rights to
payments acquired by their contributions, which are provided
for by the law. The definition of social protection is the most
acceptable, where it is defined as the whole of means, which
create the solidarity between people who have lost working
income or have some extraordinary expenses. A worldwide
dominant social insurance model which is based on the principle
of solidarity (young, healthy people assign a part of their
income to those who are not able to work and earn due to the
old age, disability, illness or loss of job) is functioning in
Lithuania. Social insurance guarantees are granted from the
funds which are accumulated from working people at the current
time period. This is so called PAYG system. The right to
receive such payments is acquired only by persons who paid
insurance contributions for a certain time period, while those
who did not, may expect only the state support. The laws in
Lithuania relate the right to receive one or another payment of
this insurance first of all with a correspondent social
insurance period, which a person has. The concept of social
justice means that, while observing the principles of
universality and solidarity, social security has to be
guaranteed for all members of society, together assigning more
responsibility to an individual for his own social security.
Alongside, the state encourages individuals to influence their
future social security standards by themselves. In case of this
disputed law, attention should be paid to the fact that valid
laws establish the duty of a person to have a certain state
social insurance period not only in case of state social
insurance of pensions. The corresponding requirement is applied
also to persons who claim for social insurance benefits of
sickness, of motherhood and motherhood (fatherhood), etc. D.
Petrylaitė pays attentions to the fact that the requirement to
have a certain social insurance period before applying for
granting of an old age pension is also provided for in the
European Social Code, Paragraph 2 of Article 29 whereof
establishes a minimum 15 year period of payment of the
contributions or work according to a job contract. Taking
account of these circumstances, one is to conclude that the
norms of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions, which
establish the minimum 15 years period of social insurance of
pensions, are not in conflict with the Constitution.
5. In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing written explanations were received
from the representative of the party concerned, the Government,
who was S. Černuševič, Head of the Pensions' Division of the
Department for Social Insurance and Pensions at the Ministry of
Social Security and Labour. It is maintained in the
explanations that in case of the disputed issue the petitioner
did not assess the whole of the provisions of the legal
regulation of state social insurance pensions and, without
taking account of the disputed provisions, groundlessly related
the provisions of Item 84 of the Regulations with Paragraph 4
of Article 45 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions.
Meanwhile, the disputed item of the Regulations is intended to
implement Paragraph 1 of Article 45 of this law, which provides
that, upon entering into force of this law, only old age and
disability pensions may be recalculated according to its
provisions, i.e. the pensions of persons who had reached the
age entitling to an old age pension prior to 1 January 1995 or
who were recognised invalids. One is to conclude that a
recipient of the service time pension, who has reached the age
entitling to an old age pension after the entry into force of
the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions, may be granted an
old age pension only according to the common procedure, without
recalculation of the previously paid service time pension. The
inaccurate formulation of Paragraph 4 of Article 45 of the Law
on State Social Insurance Pensions created possibilities for
its different interpretations.
6. In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing written explanations were received
from the representative of the party concerned, the Government,
who was Jovita Litvaitienė, Deputy Head of the Pensions
Division of the Board of the State Social Insurance Fund. It is
maintained in the explanations that both, the former and the
valid formulations of Paragraph 4 of Article 45 of the Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions are in fact identical in their
contents, they establish a provision of onetime application,
which regulate recalculation of the pensions which had been
granted prior to the entry into force of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions, therefore it is applied only to
those recipients of the service time pensions who had acquired
the right to an old age or disability pension before the entry
into force of this law, i.e. prior to 1 January 1995. Those who
have reached the age entitling to an old age pension after 1
January 1995, are granted an old age pension and calculated
according to the articles of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions, which regulate the granting of an old age pension,
but not the recalculation of a service time pension. Upon
specifying the formulation of this norm, the legislator only
confirmed that this was a norm of onetime application. In the
opinion of J. Litvaitienė, the representative of the
Government, Item 84 of the Regulations are not in conflict with
the Law on State Social Insurance Pension and the Constitution.
7. In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing written explanations were received
from the representative of the party concerned, the Government,
who was Dalia Cirtautienė, the chief specialist of the Pensions
Division of the Board of the State Social Insurance Fund. It is
maintained in the explanations that the wording of Paragraph 4
of Article 45 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions,
which is in force as from 1 January 2003, establishes that the
service time pension is recalculated into the state social
insurance old age or disability pension only in case its
recipient had reached the age entitling to an old age pension
according to this law, or had been recognised disabled before
the entry into force of this law. In the opposite case, the
granted pension is paid to the pensioner indexing it according
to the procedure which is established in Article 50 of this
law. Disputed Item 84 of the Regulations provides: "Persons who
had been granted the service time pensions prior to 1 January
1995 and who, after granting of this pension, but not later
than until 1 January 1995, had reached the age entitling to an
old age pension (men-60 years, women-55 years) or who were
invalids, may submit the data concerning their salary for the
time periods specified in Item 82 of these regulations. In this
case corresponding 60-month time periods are calculated until
the day of reaching the age entitling to an old age pension or
until the day of establishment of disability, while 24-month
periods-after reaching the age entitling to an old age pension
or until the day of establishment of disability, but not longer
than until 1 January 1995." The disputed item of the
Regulations establishes no new rules, i.e. the disputed
resolution neither amends, nor broadens the contents of the
disputed law, it contains no such legal norms, which compete
with norms of the disputed law. Both, the previously effective
and the valid formulations of the disputed law are identical,
because they consolidate a norm of onetime application, which
regulates recalculations of the pensions, which had been
granted before the entry into force of the law, and which is
applied only to those persons who enjoyed the right to an old
age or disability pension on the day of the entry into force of
the disputed law. Persons, who have reached the age entitling
to an old age pension after 1 January 1995, are granted a
pension according to articles of the disputed law, which
regulate the granting of the old age pension, but not the
recalculation of the pension. Thus, the valid formulation (as
from 1 January 2003) of the law only specified the will of the
legislator concerning the onetime application of this
provision. Therefore, D. Cirtautienė comes to a conclusion that
the disputed resolution does not change the content of the
disputed law and is not in conflict with the Constitution.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing written explanations were received
from Algirdas Sysas, Chairman of the Seimas Committee of Social
Affairs and Labour, Vilija Blinkevičiūtė, Minister of Social
Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania, Virgilijus
Bulovas, Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania,
Gintaras Švedas, Vice-minister of Justice, Paulius Koverovas,
State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, Mindaugas Mikaila,
Director of the Board of the State Social Insurance Fund,
Dalius Prevelis, the then Director of the Board of the State
Social Insurance Fund, Česlava Zabulėnienė, the then
temporarily acting Director of the Board of the State Social
Insurance Fund, Dana Migaliova, Chairwoman of the Association
for the Care of Mentally Disturbed People of Lithuania and
Audrius Jasiūnas, a lawyer of this association, Romualdas
Užmiškis, Chairman of the Board of the Civil Aviation Pilots
Association of Lithuania, and Sergej Barickij, Chairman of the
Board of Flight Captains Association of Lithuania.
V
At the Constitutional Court hearing, the representatives
of the Seimas, the party concerned, who were J. Meškienė and D.
Petrylaitė, and the representative of the Government, the party
concerned, who was S. Černuševič, virtually reiterated the
arguments set forth in their written explanations to the
Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court
holds that
I
1. On 18 July 1994, the Seimas adopted the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions. This law has been amended and/or
supplemented more than once.
On 22 December 1994, the Seimas adopted the Law on State
Pensions. This law has been amended and/or supplemented more
than once.
By its Resolution No. 1156 "On the Approval of Regulations
of Granting and Payment of State Social Insurance Pensions" of
18 November 1994, the Government approved the Regulations of
Granting and Payment of State Social Insurance Pensions, which
were subsequently amended and/or supplemented for several
times.
2. By its 10 October 2001 ruling, the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, requests to investigate
whether Article 32 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions is not in conflict with Articles 29 and 52 of the
Constitution, and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law.
By its 5 December 2002 ruling, the Supreme Administrative
Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, requests to investigate
whether Item 84 of the Regulation of Granting and Payment of
State Social Insurance Pensions as approved by the Government
Resolution No. 1156 of 18 November 1994 is not in conflict with
Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution and Paragraph 4 of
Article 45 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions.
By its 15 April 2003 ruling, the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, requests to investigate
whether the provisions of Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Law
on State Pensions are not in conflict with Articles 52 and 23
of the Constitution, and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law.
By its 28 July 2003 ruling, the Supreme Administrative
Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, requests to investigate
whether the provisions of Article 1 (wordings of 18 July 1994
and 21 January 2003), Article 3 (wording of 18 July 1994),
Paragraph 2 of Article 6 (wording of 22 October 1998), Item 2
of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 (wording of 1 July 1999) and
Paragraph 1 of Article 19 (wording of 18 July 1994) are not in
conflict with Article 52 and 29 of the Constitution.
By its 8 October 2003 ruling, the Supreme Administrative
Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, requests to investigate
whether the provisions of Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 July 1995)
of Article 48 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions and
Item 4 of the Law "On the Amendment and Supplement of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions"
which was adopted on 28 September 1995 are not in conflict with
Articles 52 and 23 of the Constitution.
II
1. Article 52 of the Constitution provides: "the State
shall guarantee the right of citizens to receive old age and
disability pensions, as well as social assistance in the event
of unemployment, sickness, widowhood, loss of breadwinner, and
other cases provided for in laws."
1.1. Article 52 of the Constitution establishes the
grounds for pensionary maintenance and social assistance.
According to this article of the Constitution, the legislator
must establish by the law old age and disability pensions, as
well as social assistance in the event of unemployment,
sickness, widowhood, and loss of breadwinner. Beside that,
according to the Constitution, other pensions and social
assistance than those specified in Article 52 of the
Constitution may be established by the law (Constitutional
Court rulings of 23 April 2002, 25 November 2002 and 4 July
2003). It has to be noted that, under the Constitution, the
bases of pensionary maintenance, persons, to whom pensions are
granted and paid, conditions of granting and payment of
pensions, as well as the amounts of pensions have to be
established only by the law. The legislator, while adopting
laws concerning pensionary maintenance, is bound by the norms
and principles of the Constitution.
1.2. The Constitutional Court has held in its rulings more
than once that the provisions of Article 52 of the
Constitution, which guarantee the right of the citizens to
pensionary maintenance and social assistance, oblige the state
to establish sufficient means for the implementation and legal
protection of this right. It means that the law has not only to
establish the types of pensions and social assistance which are
specified in this article of the Constitution, but also
guarantee the appropriate implementation and legal protection
of the right of a human being to receive a pension or social
assistance. Thus, the provisions of Article 52 of the
Constitution imply the duty of the legislator to establish such
a legal regulation, which would guarantee the accumulation of
means that are necessary for pensions and social assistance, as
well as the payment of these pensions and rendering of social
assistance.
1.3. Old age and disability pensions are the types of
pensions which are expressis verbis pointed out in Article 52
of the Constitution. In the context of the case at issue, it
has to be noted that, while establishing by the law the old age
pension according to Article 52 of the Constitution, it must
establish the age upon reaching which the person has the right
to receive an old age pension, also the grounds, conditions and
amounts of the awarding and payment of this pension, while
establishing a disability pension to persons, to whom
disablement has been established, the law must establish what
is considered the disablement, as well as the grounds,
conditions and amounts of the awarding and payment of this
pension.
1.4. Under the Constitution, the state, as the
organisation of the whole society, has the duty to take care of
its members in the event of old age, disability, unemployment,
sickness, loss of breadwinner and other cases provided for in
the Constitution and laws. The means of social protection
express the idea of solidarity of the society, help a person to
protect himself from possible social risks.
It needs to be noted that in a civil society the principle
of solidarity does not deny personal responsibility for one's
destiny, therefore the legal regulation of social assistance
must be such as to create preconditions and incentives for
every member of society to take care of one's own welfare by
oneself, but not to rely solely on the social assistance
guaranteed by the state. It means that it is impossible to
construe the solidarity principle as establishing the
discretion of the legislator to regulate the awarding and
payment of old age pensions so that the amounts of old age
pensions, when the system of old age pensions is based on
social insurance, while creating the material preconditions of
payment of such pensions, will not or will insignificantly
depend on the amounts of contributions that have been paid.
Payment of social insurance contributions implies the right of
a person to receive an old age pension of the correspondent
amount, and this amount may not depend on the paid social
insurance contributions (Constitutional Court ruling of 25
November 2002).
1.5. It has been mentioned that, according to the
Constitution, other pensions, which are not directly named in
the Constitution, may be established by the law. For example,
under the Law on State Pensions, the following state pensions
are established in the Republic of Lithuania: the state pension
of the President of the Republic, state pensions of the
Republic of Lithuania of the first and second degree, state
pensions of victims, state pensions of the officials and
servicemen, state pensions of scientists, state pensions of
judges. State pensions of the Republic of Lithuania of the
first and second degree, as well as state pensions of victims
are granted according to this law. State pensions of the
President of the Republic, officials and servicemen, scientists
and judges are granted according to special laws. In some cases
state pensions are granted for a certain service (for instance,
state pensions of the officials and servicemen), in other
cases--for merits to the State of Lithuania (for instance,
state pensions of the Republic of Lithuania of the first and
second degree) or as a compensation to victims (for instance,
to persons who became invalids as a result of the aggression
perpetrated on 11-13 January 1991 and subsequent events,
rehabilitated political prisoners and deportees, members of the
resistance and participants of the opposition to the Soviet
occupation, the persons who in the course of World War II were
deported for forced labour purposes or were committed to
ghettos and concentration camps, participants of World War II,
the persons who participated in the elimination of the
consequences of the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power
Station etc.) etc. The legislator, while establishing by law
the bases of such pensionary maintenance, persons who are
granted and paid these pensions, conditions of granting and
payment of pensions, as well as the amounts of pensions, must
in every event obey the norms and principles of the
Constitution. It has to be noted that if the legislator did not
obey the Constitution, while establishing such pensionary
maintenance (for example, if he granted state pensions to
persons who may not be granted such pensions, established
groundlessly large or small amounts of such pensions, or
established ungrounded conditions of granting and payment of
such pensions), it would be impossible to defend such
pensionary maintenance according to the Constitution.
1.6. In the context of the case under consideration it
must be noted that the legislator, while establishing which
persons are granted and paid the state pension, the grounds and
conditions for granting and payment of the state pension, as
well as the amounts of this pension, is bound by the
constitutional imperative of social harmony, the principles of
justice, reasonableness and proportionality. Granting and
payment of a state pension may not become a privilege.
It also needs to be noted that state pensions differ in
their nature and character from state social insurance
pensions, as well as from the old age pension. These pensions
are granted to persons for their service or merits to the State
of Lithuania, as well as the compensation to victims specified
in the law, and are paid from the State Budget. These
peculiarities of state pensions imply the fact that the
legislator, taking account of all significant circumstances and
paying heed to the Constitution, may establish the maximum
amount of such pensions. It needs to be noted that the
legislator may consolidate various ways for the establishment
of the maximum amount of such pension.
1.7. The provision "the State shall guarantee" of Article
52 of the Constitution inter alia means that, upon establishing
certain pensionary maintenance by the law, the state is
obligated to guarantee it to the specified persons on the
grounds and by the amounts which have been established by the
law, while the persons who meet the conditions provided by the
law, have the right to demand that the state grant and pay this
pension to them. Thus, the said provision of Article 52 of the
Constitution implies the duty of the legislator, when he
establishes by law a certain pension, to consolidate such legal
regulation which would ensure the payment of this pension to
the persons who meet the conditions established by the law.
1.8. While establishing the legal regulation, according to
which persons who meet the conditions provided by the law
acquire the right to a certain pension established in the law,
the state alongside accepts the duty to grant and pay this
pension. The person who meets the conditions established by the
law has the right to demand that the state fulfil the
obligation undertaken by the law and pay the payments of the
established amount.
1.9. Alongside, it should be noted that there might occur
such an extreme situation in the state (economic crisis,
natural disaster etc.) when there is objective lack funds for
the fulfilment of the state functions and satisfying of public
interests, as well as the payment of pensions. In such
extraordinary cases the legal regulation of pensionary
relations may be corrected also by reducing pensions to the
extent that it is necessary to ensure vitally important
interests of society and protect other constitutional values.
The reduced pensions may only be paid on a temporary basis,
i.e. only when there is an extraordinary situation in the sate
(Constitutional Court rulings of 23 April 2002, 25 November
2002 and 4 July 2003). It needs to be noted that even in such
extraordinary cases it is not permitted that pensions be
reduced in violation of the balance between the interests of
the person and society; such reduction of pensions must be in
line with the constitutional principle of proportionality.
2. The Constitution shall be an integral act (Paragraph 1
of Article 6 of the Constitution). The principles and norms of
the Constitution compose a harmonious system. No provision of
the Constitution may be construed so that the content of
another constitutional provision would be distorted or denied,
since thus the essence of the whole constitutional regulation
would be distorted and the balance of values consolidated in
the Constitution would be disturbed.
The provisions of Article 52 of the Constitution should be
construed by taking account of other provisions of the
Constitution, while in the context of the case at issue it must
be done while taking into consideration of the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law, the provisions of
Articles 23 and 29 of the Constitution.
3. The constitutional principle of a state under the rule
of law is a universal principle upon which the whole legal
system of Lithuania and the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania itself are based; the content of the principle of a
state under the rule of law is revealed in various provisions
of the Constitution and is construed inseparably from the
striving for an open, just and harmonious civil society which
is declared in the Preamble to the Constitution.
3.1. Alongside with other requirements, the principle of a
state under the rule of law consolidated in the Constitution
also implies that human rights and freedoms must be secured,
that all institutions implementing state power and other state
institutions must act while observing the law and in compliance
with the law, that the Constitution has the supreme legal power
and that laws, Government resolutions and other legal acts must
be in conformity with the Constitution. It has to be also noted
that the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law is inseparable from the principle of justice, and vice
versa. The Constitutional Court has held in its rulings more
than once that justice is one of the basic aims of law, as the
means of regulation of social relations. It is one of basic
moral values and one of basic foundations of a state under the
rule of law. It may be implemented by ensuring certain
equilibrium of interests, by escaping fortuity and
arbitrariness, instability of social life and conflict of
interests.
3.2. Inseparable elements of the principle of a state
under the rule of law are the protection of legitimate
expectations, legal certainty and legal security. These
principles inter alia imply that the state must fulfil the
undertaken obligations to the person. The Constitutional Court
has held more than once that if the protection of legitimate
expectations, legal certainty and legal security of the person
were not ensured, the confidence of the person in the state and
law would not be ensured.
One of the essential elements of the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law is the principle of
legal security, which means that the state has the duty to
ensure certainty and stability of legal regulation, to
safeguard the rights of participants of legal relations,
including the acquired rights as well as to respect legitimate
expectations (Constitutional Court rulings of 12 July 2001, 5
November 2002, 4 March 2003, 17 March 2003 and 4 July 2003). It
also needs to be noted that, according to the Constitution,
only those expectations of the person in relations with the
state are protected and defended, which arise from the
Constitution itself or from the laws and other legal acts that
are not in conflict with the Constitution. Only these
expectations of the person in relations with the state are
considered legitimate.
One of the elements of the principle of legitimate
expectations is the protection of rights which are acquired
under the Constitution as well as laws and other legal acts
which are not in conflict with the Constitution. It is
noteworthy in the context of the case under consideration that
persons who have acquired certain rights according to the law,
have the right to reasonably expect that these rights will be
retained and implemented for the established time period. It
needs to be noted that, while changing legal regulation, it is
necessary to observe the norms and principles of the
Constitution, and inter alia the principle lex retro non agit,
and that the rights and legitimate expectations acquired by the
person may not be denied by changes in legal regulation. A
person who meets the conditions established by the law acquires
the right to a pension established by the law. This person may
reasonably expect that this right will be protected and
defended by the state. When the pension established by the law,
which is not in conflict with the Constitution, is granted and
paid, this right and legitimate expectation acquired by the
person are also to be linked to the protection of the rights of
ownership of this person.
3.3. Since the state must also observe the constitutional
principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and
legal certainty in the relations of pensionary maintenance, the
amendments of the established legal regulation deteriorating
the pensionary maintenance are possible only when there appears
an extraordinary situation in the state (economic crisis,
natural disaster etc.) when there is objective lack funds for
the fulfilment of the state functions and satisfying of public
interests, as well as the payment of pensions. These amendments
must be necessary for the protection of other constitutional
values and they can be done by law only, without violating the
Constitution.
In its 4 July 2003 ruling the Constitutional Court noted
that the constitutional protection of acquired rights and
legitimate expectations does not mean that the system of
pensionary maintenance established by law may not be
reorganised. While reorganising this system, the Constitution
must be observed in every case. The system of pensions may be
reorganised only by law, only guaranteeing the old age and
disability pensions provided for by the Constitution, as well
as observing undertaken obligations by the state, which are not
in conflict with Constitution, to pay corresponding payments to
persons who meet the requirements established by the law. If,
while reorganising the pensionary system, the pensions
established by the laws which are not directly specified in
Article 52 of the Constitution were eliminated, or the legal
regulation of these pensions were amended in essence, the
legislator would be obligated to establish a just mechanism for
compensation of the existing losses to the persons who had been
granted and paid such pensions.
4. Article 23 of the Constitution provides:
"Property shall be inviolable.
The rights of ownership shall be protected by laws.
Property may only be seized for the needs of society in
accordance with the procedure established by law and shall be
justly compensated for."
4.1. While construing the provisions of Article 23 of the
Constitution, the Constitutional Court has held for more than
once that the inviolability of property and protection of the
rights of ownership inter alia mean that the owner, as the
holder of subjective rights to property, has the right to
require that other persons not violate his rights, as well as
that the state have a duty to ensure the defence and protection
of the rights of ownership.
4.2. It has been mentioned that the Constitution is an
integral act, that its rules are interrelated and constitute a
harmonious system. While revealing the content of the
constitutional institute of the protection of the rights of
ownership, one has to take account not only of Article 23 of
the Constitution, bust also of other provisions of the
Constitution which reveal different aspects of this
constitutional concept of this right, as well as of Article 52
of the Constitution. In its 4 July 2003 ruling the
Constitutional Court held that the requirements of a person to
pay the payments of pensionary maintenance established by law
are defended not only under Article 52 of the Constitution, but
also under Article 23 of the Constitution. It needs to be noted
that in that case the right to demand for the payments of
pensionary maintenance which are established by the
Constitution or laws that are not in conflict with the latter,
arises also from Article 52 of the Constitution, while under
Article 23 of the Constitution the proprietary aspects of this
right are defended.
4.3. It needs to be noted in the context of the case at
issue that the state has the duty to fulfil those obligations
of proprietary nature, which it has undertaken establishing by
the law such legal regulation according to which the person who
meets conditions provided by the law, acquires the right to a
certain pension. Thus, the person, who meets the conditions
established by the law which entitle to an old age pension and
who is granted and paid this pension, has the right to a
pecuniary payment of a certain amount, i.e. the right to
ownership. Under Article 23 of the Constitution, this right
must be protected and defended.
4.4. Thus, under Article 23 of the Constitution, persons
who have been granted and paid a pension established by the law
or the Constitution have the right to demand that the payments
be paid further to them in the amounts which were granted and
paid previously. It goes without saying that the law which
provides the grounds of such pensionary maintenance, persons
who are granted and paid pensions, conditions for the granting
and payment of pensions, as well as the amounts of pensions,
must be in conformity with the norms and principles of the
Constitution.
It has been mentioned that pensions which have been
granted and paid under the Constitution may be reduced only in
case of an extraordinary situation in the state (economic
crisis, natural disaster etc.) when there is objective lack of
funds for the fulfilment of the state functions and satisfying
of public interests, as well as the payment of pensions. In
this event the granted and paid pensions may be reduced to the
extent that it is necessary to ensure vitally important
interests of the society, protect other constitutional values.
Alongside, it has to be noted that the reduced pensions may
only be paid on a temporary basis. Beside that, while
implementing the reform of pensionary system, some pensions may
be eliminated, and the amounts of others may be reduced. In
this case the legislator must establish a just mechanism for
compensation to persons of the losses which have been incurred
due to such amendment of the regulation. Otherwise the legal
regulation according to which the payment of the granted and
paid pension is terminated or reduced, is to be assessed as
violating Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution which
provides that the rights of ownership shall be protected by
laws.
5. Article 29 of the Constitution provides:
"All persons shall be equal before the law, the court, and
other State institutions and officials.
The human being may not have his rights restricted, nor
may be granted any privileges on the grounds of gender, race,
nationality, language, origin, social status, beliefs,
convictions, or views."
5.1. Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution
consolidates the formal equality of all persons, the principle
of non-discrimination and not granting of privileges to
persons. The constitutional principle of equality of persons
before the law means an innate human right to be treated
equally with the others.
5.2. In its rulings the Constitutional Court has held for
many a time that this principle must be followed both in
passing of laws and in their application. The said principle
obliges to legally assess the homogeneous facts in the same
manner and prohibits to arbitrary assess the facts, which are
the same in essence, in a different manner. It also needs to be
noted that the principle of equality of persons before the law
does not deny a possibility to provide in a law for different
legal regulation in respect to certain categories of persons
who are in different situations, that the constitutional
principle of equality of persons before the law would be
violated if a certain group of persons, which a legal norm is
addressed to, would be treated in a different manner comparing
to other addressees of the same norm, though there exist no
differences of such nature and scope between those two groups,
which would objectively justify this different treatment.
5.3. The principle of equality of all persons which is
consolidated in Article 29 of the Constitution includes the
prohibition both of discrimination and privileges.
Discrimination is most often understood as restriction of human
rights according to gender, race, nationality, language,
origin, social status, religion, convictions, opinions or other
indications. However, differentiated legal regulation when it
is applied to certain groups of persons which are distinguished
by the same signs, and in case one strives for positive and
socially meaningful goals, is not regarded as discrimination or
privileges. Special requirements or certain conditions are not
attributed to discriminative restrictions as well, if their
establishment is related to peculiarities of regulated
relations.
6. According Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution, the
Government "shall execute laws and resolutions of the Seimas
concerning the implementation of laws, as well as the decrees
of the President of the Republic".
The norm provided by Item 2 of Article 94 of the
Constitution means that the Government is obligated to execute
laws and resolutions of the Seimas concerning the
implementation of laws, as well as the decrees of the President
of the Republic. It has to be noted that resolutions of the
Seimas, decrees of the President of the Republic are
substatutory acts which are issued on the basis of the
Constitution and laws. While executing laws, resolutions of the
Seimas concerning the implementation of laws, decrees of the
President of the Republic, the Government issues substatutory
acts--resolutions. In its 29 November 2001 ruling the
Constitutional Court held that, under the Constitution, all
questions of state administration which are attributed to the
powers of the Government by the Constitution and laws, are
decided by adoption of resolutions, that the affairs of state
administration may not be decided by the Government adopting an
act of a different type.
While adopting resolutions, the Government must follow the
Constitution and laws. Under the Constitution, a resolution of
the Government is a substatutory legal act. It may not be in
conflict with a law, change the content of the norms of a law,
it may not contain any norms which would compete with the norms
of a law.
III
On the compliance of Paragraph 1 (wordings of 18 July 1994
and 21 January 2003) of Article 1, Article 3 (wording of 18
July 1994), Paragraph 2 (wording of 22 October 1998) of Article
6, Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 (wording of 7 July 1999)
and Paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions with Articles 29 and 52 of the Constitution.
1. It has been mentioned that the Supreme Administrative
Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, by its 28 July 2003 ruling
requests to investigate whether Paragraph 1 (wordings of 18
July 1994 and 21 January 2003) of Article 1, Article 3 (wording
of 18 July 1994), Paragraph 2 (wording of 22 October 1998) of
Article 6, Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 (wording of 7
July 1999) and Paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions are not in conflict with Articles 29
and 52 of the Constitution.
The petitioner has doubts as to whether the legal
regulation as established in the provisions of the said
articles of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions
according to which the granting and payment of a state social
insurance pension is related not only with the corresponding
age of the person and the social insurance period, but also
with the necessity to have the minimum period of social
insurance of pensions, which is established for the old age
pension.
2. Article 1 (wording of 18 July 1994) of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions used to establish:
"Permanent residents of the Republic of Lithuania who have
been compulsory insured or insured themselves by the state
social pension insurance shall have the right to receive the
state social insurance pension.
Citizens of the Republic of Lithuania permanently residing
abroad shall have the right to receive the state social
insurance pension if it is established by international
agreements or according to the procedure established by the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania.
Foreign citizens and stateless persons permanently
residing in Lithuania shall have the equal right to receive the
state social insurance pension according to this law, if laws
of the Republic of Lithuania or international agreements do not
establish other conditions for pensionary maintenance of these
persons."
On 1 October 2002, by Article 1 of the Law on the
Supplement of Article 1 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions, the Seimas supplemented Article 1 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions with Paragraph 4, while on 21 January
2003, by Article 1 of Chapter 2 of the Law on the Amendment and
Supplement of the Law on the Implementation of the Citizenship
Law, the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions, the Law on
Benefit (Social) Pensions, the Provisional Law on the State
Pensions of Scientists, the Law on State Pensions, the Seimas
supplemented Article 1 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions with new Paragraph 2. The legal regulation, as
entrenched in Paragraph 1 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article
1 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions, was not
amended.
Though the petitioner requests to investigate the
compliance of Article 1 (wordings of 18 July 1994 and 21
January 2003) of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions
with the Constitution, it is clear from the arguments set forth
in the petition that he has doubts as to the constitutionality
of Paragraph 1 (wording of 18 July 1994) of this article to the
extent which is related with the necessity to have the minimum
period of social pension insurance entitling to an old age
pensions which is established by the law.
Taking account of the arguments set forth in the request
by the petitioner, the Constitutional Court will investigate
whether Paragraph 1 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 1 of
the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions to the extent which
is related with the necessity to have the minimum period of
social pension insurance entitling to an old age pension which
is established by the law is not in conflict with Articles 52
and 29 of the Constitution.
3. Article 3 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions
provides: "State social insurance pensions shall be granted to
persons specified in Articles 1 and 2 if they meet the
requirements of the state social pension insurance period
established by this Law for the granting of the relevant type
of pension and upon reaching the age established by this Law,
are recognised as disabled, and in case on death of such
persons--to the members of their families."
Though the petitioner requests to investigate the
compliance of Article 3 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions with the Constitution, it is clear from the arguments
set forth in the petition that he has doubts as to the
constitutionality of the provision of Article 3 of the Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions "State social insurance
pensions shall be granted to persons <...> if they meet the
requirements of the state social pension insurance period
established by this Law for the granting of the relevant type
of pension" to the extent with the necessity to have the
minimum period of social pension insurance entitling to an old
age pension which is established by the law.
Taking account of the arguments set forth in the petition
of the petitioner, the Constitutional Court will investigate
whether the provision of Article 3 of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions "State social insurance pensions shall be
granted to persons <...> if they meet the requirements of the
state social pension insurance period established by this Law
for the granting of the relevant type of pension" is not in
conflict with Articles 52 and 29 of the Constitution to the
extent with the necessity to have the minimum period of social
pension insurance entitling to an old age pension which is
established by the law.
4. Paragraph 2 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 6 of
the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions used to establish:
"The basic part of the state social insurance pension shall
guarantee the minimum pensionary maintenance to persons who
have the necessary state social pension insurance period
established by this law and who meet other conditions
established by this law."
Article 6 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions
has been later amended and supplemented more than once,
however, the legal regulation as entrenched in Paragraph 2
(wording of 18 July 1994) has not been amended. On 22 October
1998, by Article 2 of the Law on the Amendment and Supplement
of Articles 2, 6, 8, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 40, 45, 46,
47, 52 and 56 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions,
the Seimas amended Paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions.
Though the petitioner requests to investigate the
compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 22 October 1998) of
Article 6 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions with
the Constitution, it is clear from the arguments set forth in
the petition that he has doubts as to the constitutionality of
Paragraph 2 (wording of 18 July 1994) to the extent which is
related with the necessity to have the minimum period of social
pension insurance entitling to an old age pension which is
established by the law.
Taking account of the arguments set forth in the petition
of the petitioner, the Constitutional Court will investigate
whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 6 of
the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions to the extent which
is related with the necessity to have the minimum period of
social pension insurance entitling to an old age pension which
is established by the law is not in conflict with Articles 52
and 29 of the Constitution.
5. Paragraph 1 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 17 of
the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions used to establish:
"A person shall be entitled to receive a state social
insurance pension if he meets all following requirements:
1) reaches the age entitling to an old age pension
established by this Law;
2) has the minimum state social pension insurance period
which is established for the old age pension;
3) has no less that a 3-year state social pension
insurance period within the last 5 years, or has a 1-year state
social pension insurance period within the last 1 year, or has
no less that a 35-year state social pension insurance period."
5.1. On 7 July 1999, the Seimas adopted the Law on the
Amendment and Supplement of Articles 2, 7, 12, 14, 17, 24, 26,
27, 28, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 49 and 51 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
1999, No. 66-2115), by Article 5 whereof Article 17 of the
State Social Insurance Pensions was amended, recognising Item 3
of Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 as no longer valid, former
Paragraph 3 considering as Paragraph 2, deleting the word and
the number "and 3" from this Paragraph 2, and writing the word
"of item" instead of "of items" and set it forth as follows:
"Article 17. Right to receive the state social insurance
pension
A person shall be entitled to receive a state social
insurance pension if he meets all following requirements:
1) reaches the age entitling to an old age pension
established by this Law;
2) has the minimum state social pension insurance period
which is established for the old age pension;
A person must meet the requirements of Item 2 of Paragraph
1 of this article on the day he reaches the age entitling to an
old age pension or the day he applies for a pension when the
pension is applied for having already reached the age entitling
to a pension."
Thus, Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions remained unchanged.
5.2. The Constitutional Court will investigate whether
Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 (wording of 17 July 1999)
of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions is not in
conflict with the Constitution.
6. Paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions provides: "The minimum state social
insurance period entitling to a state social insurance pension
shall be 15 years."
7. The provisions of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions disputed by the petitioner are interrelated by the
legal regulation established therein, according to which the
minimum state social pension insurance period of the amount
established by the law, is the obligatory condition in order to
receive an old age pension.
It has been mentioned that Article 52 of the Constitution
guarantees the right of citizens to receive old age and
disability pensions, as well as other social assistance.
Therefore, a duty arises for the legislator not only to
establish the types of the specified pensions, but also to
consolidate such a legal regulation which would ensure the
accumulation of funds, which are necessary for pensions and
social assistance, and the payments of these pensions.
Otherwise, the duty assigned to the state to establish
sufficient means for the implementation and legal defence of
the rights entrenched in the Constitution would not be
realised. The social security means, as consolidated in the
Constitution, express the idea of social solidarity--to help a
person to protect himself from possible social risks. However,
the principle of social solidarity in a civil society does not
negate personal responsibility for one's destiny, therefore the
legal regulation of social assistance must be such so as to
create preconditions and incentives for every member of society
to take care of one's own welfare by oneself, but not to rely
solely on the social assistance guaranteed by the state.
In its 25 November 2002 ruling the Constitutional Court
held that it is impossible to construe the solidarity principle
as establishing the discretion of the legislator to regulate
the awarding and payment of old age pensions so that the
amounts of old age pensions, when the system of old age
pensions is based on social insurance, while creating the
material preconditions of payment of such pensions, will not or
will insignificantly depend on the amounts of contributions
that have been paid.
The creation of material preconditions of the payment of
old age pensions is determined both by the time period during
which a person pays state social insurance contributions
himself or someone pays contributions for him, and by the total
amount of state social pension insurance contributions paid to
the state social insurance budget. Thus, the total contribution
of a person (total amount of the obligatory state social
pension insurance contributions of a person) while creating
material preconditions for the payment of a state social
insurance pension, when the system of old age pensions is based
on social insurance, could also be one of the criterion which
is to be taken account of while establishing the conditions for
the receiving of the state social insurance pension.
The legal regulation, whereby too early or too late
pensionary age entitling to a state social insurance pension
would be established or whereby the grounds would be
established for the granting of this pension distorting the
meaning of a personal contribution while creating material
preconditions for the payment of this pension or establishing
conditions of the granting and payment of this pension, denying
the participation of a person in the creation of material
preconditions of the payment of this pension, would be in
conflict with the Constitution.
While paying heed to the norms and principles of the
Constitution, the legislator has the right to establish the
minimum state social pension insurance period entitling to the
state social insurance pension as one of the conditions for the
receiving of such a pension. Alongside, it has to be noted that
while establishing what conditions for the receiving of an old
age pension the person who has reached the age entitling to an
old age pension must meet, the legislator should take account
of all important circumstances, as well as of the personal
contribution while forming preconditions of the payment of an
old age pension established in Article 52 of the Constitution.
Otherwise, the legal regulation of old age pensions would be
insufficient and simplex. It is also important that a person,
having reached the age entitling to an old age pension would
not be left without social assistance altogether.
8. While assessing whether the provisions of the articles
of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions are not in
conflict with Article 52 of the Constitution, first of all one
has to assess whether Paragraph 1 of Article 17 (wording of 7
July 1999) of this law, establishing that a person acquires the
right to a state social insurance old age pension when he meets
the following conditions: (1) reaches the age entitling to an
old age pension established by this law; (2) has the minimum
state social pension insurance period which is established for
the old age pension, is not in conflict with it.
9. According to Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions, if the person has not the
obligatory state social insurance period but has the minimum
state social insurance period entitling to an old age pension,
the basic part of the state social insurance old age pension
shall be calculated in proportion to the person's insurance
period by multiplying the basic pension and the available
person's insurance period and dividing by the obligatory
insurance period.
Under the Law of State Social Insurance Pensions, the
minimum state social pension insurance period entitling to a
state social insurance pension is an obligatory condition which
has to be met by a person who has reached the age entitling to
an old age pension as established by the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions in order to grant and pay a state social
insurance old age pension to him. Thus, a person who has not
the minimum state social pension insurance period cannot be
granted a state social insurance pension under to the Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions.
10. Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions provide that the insured person's state
social pension insurance period comprises a person's state
social pension insurance period acquired working under an
employment contract, on the basis of membership or service, and
a person's state social pension insurance period acquired by
self-employment.
The establishment of the minimum state social pension
insurance period means that a person must be obligatory insured
or insure himself by the state social pension insurance for a
time period not less than that established by the law.
11. It has been mentioned that according to Paragraph 1 of
Article 17 (wording of 7 July 1999), the right of the person to
receive a state social insurance old age pension is related
with the age of the person and the established minimum state
social pension insurance period entitling to an old age
pension. According to Paragraph 1 (wording of 18 July 1994) of
Article 19 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions, the
minimum state social pension insurance period is 15 years.
Thus, under the law, this 15-year period during which a person
was obligatory insured or insured himself by the state social
pension insurance is a condition for the receiving of an old
age pension. It has been mentioned that the legislator, while
paying heed to the norms and principles of the Constitution,
may establish the minimum state social pension insurance period
as one of the conditions for the receiving of a state social
insurance pension.
While assessing the legal regulation established in
Paragraph 1 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 19 of the Law
on State Social Insurance Pension, according to which the
minimum state social pension insurance period is 15 years, one
is to hold that there are no grounds to maintain that the
establishment of the minimum 15-year state social pension
insurance period as a condition for the receiving of an old age
pension in itself is in conflict with Articles 52 and 29 of the
Constitution, as well as the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law.
12. According to Paragraph 1 of Article 17 (wording of 7
July 1999) of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions, a
person acquires the right to a state social insurance old age
pension when he meets the following conditions: reaches the age
entitling to an old age pension established by this law and has
the minimum state social pension insurance period established
for the old age pension.
It has been mentioned that if the system of old age
pensions is based on social insurance, both the acquisition of
the right to receive such a pension and its amount cannot be
independent or little dependent on the personal contribution
while creating material conditions for the payment of this
pension. It has been mentioned that the personal contribution
is determined by the amount of contributions of the state
social pension insurance and time period which these
contributions were paid to the State Social Insurance Fund
Budget.
While establishing by Paragraph 1 of Article 17 (wording
of 7 July 1999) of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions
the minimum state social pension insurance period entitling to
an old age pension as an obligatory condition for the receiving
of an old age pension for a person who has reached the age
entitling to an old age pension established by this law, the
legislator took account of an important criterion--time period
during which these contributions were paid to the State Social
Insurance Fund Budget. Thus, according to this legal
regulation, a person has the right to receive an old age
pension if he has reached the age entitling to an old age
pension according to this law and if he has the minimum state
social pension insurance period entitling to an old age
pension. Therefore, in this case the sufficiency of personal
contribution while creating material preconditions for
receiving of an old age pension was taken into consideration.
While construing Article 52 of the Constitution, the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law must
be regarded as well. It needs to be noted that the principle of
a state under the rule of law is inseparable from justice--one
of the basic goals of the implementation of law as the means of
regulation of social relations. Justice can be implemented by
ensuring the balance of interests, avoiding coincidences and
arbitrariness, confrontation of interests. Thus, the principle
of a state under the rule of law, as entrenched in the
Constitution, is inseparable from the imperative of justice and
vice versa.
Virtually, by the legal regulation according to which the
implementation of the right to the old age pension is related
to the minimum state social pension insurance period, i.e. the
time during which a person has been obligatory insured or
insured himself by the state social pension insurance, the
account is taken of personal contribution while creating
material preconditions for the payment of old age pensions.
Such legal regulation is not in conflict with Article 52 of the
Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law.
13. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 (wording of 7
July 1999) of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions is not
in conflict with Articles 52 and 29 of the Constitution, and
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
14. The petitioner doubts as to the compliance of disputed
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 (wording of 18 July 1994), the
provision "state social insurance pensions shall be granted to
persons <...> if they meet the requirements of the state social
pension insurance period for the granting of respective type of
the pension, established by this law" of Article 3 and the
provisions of Paragraph 2 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article
6 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions with the
Constitution to the extent which relates the legal regulation
consolidated therein with the necessity to have the minimum
state social pension insurance period established by the law
for the old age pension. From this aspect the specified
provisions of the law are inseparable from Item 2 of Paragraph
1 of Article 17 (wording of 7 July 1999) which, as the formerly
valid Item 2 of Paragraph 1 (wording of 18 July 1994) of
Article 17 of Law on State Social Insurance Pensions, used to
establish that a person acquires the right to receive a state
social insurance old age pension when he inter alia has the
minimum state social pension insurance period which entitles to
an old age pension according to the law.
Therefore, the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 1
(wording of 18 July 1994), the provision "state social
insurance pensions shall be granted to persons <...> if they
meet the requirements of the state social pension insurance
period for the granting of respective type of the pension,
established by this law" of Article 3 and the provisions of
Paragraph 2 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 6 of the Law
on State Social Insurance Pensions with Articles 52 and 29 of
the Constitution, as well as the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law is to be assessed according to the
compliance of Item 2 of Paragraph 1 (wording of 7 July 1999) of
Article 17 of Law on State Social Insurance Pensions with these
articles of the Constitution and the constitutional principle
of a state under the rule of law.
15. Having held that Item 2 of Paragraph 1 (wording of 7
July 1999) of Article 17 of Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions is not in conflict with Articles 52 and 29 of the
Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law, one is to hold alongside that Paragraph 1 of
Article 1 (wording of 18 July 1994) to the extent which is
related to the necessity to have the minimum state social
pension insurance period which entitles to an old age pension
according to the law, the provision of "state social insurance
pensions shall be granted to persons <...> if they meet the
requirements of the state social pension insurance period for
the granting of respective type of the pension, established by
this law" Article 3 to the extent which is related to the
necessity to have the minimum state social pension insurance
period which entitles to an old age pension according to the
law, and Paragraph 2 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 6 of
the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions to the extent which
is related to the necessity to have the minimum state social
pension insurance period which entitles to an old age pension
according to the law is also not in conflict with Articles 52
and 29 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of
a state under the rule of law.
IV
On the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 32 (wordings
of 21 December 2000 and 8 May 2001) of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions with Articles 29 and 52 of the Constitution,
and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law.
1. Article 32 (wording of 18 July 1994) of the Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions used to establish:
"The disabled who have reached the age entitling to an old
age pension (Articles 18 and 55) and those who are older shall
be paid the full granted state social insurance disability
pension irrespective of their income.
The disabled who have not reached the age entitling to an
old age pension and who receive insured income shall be paid
only the basic part of the state social insurance disability
pension and only when they have the obligatory period for the
disability pension."
2. On 21 December 1994, by Article 3 of the Law "On the
Amendment and Supplement of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions", on 4 July 1995, by Article 3
of the Law "On the Amendment and Supplement of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions", on 22
October 1998, by Article 8 of the Law on the Amendment and
Supplement of Articles 2, 6, 8, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 40,
45, 46, 47, 52 and 56 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions, the Seimas amended and supplemented Paragraph 2 of
Article 32 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions.
Paragraph 1 of this article has not been amended.
3. On 21 December 2000, the Seimas adopted the Law on the
Amendment of Articles 23 and 32 of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2000,
No. 111-3573), by Article 2 whereof Article 32 of the Law on
State Social Insurance Pension was amended and set forth as
follows:
"Article 32. Payment of disability pensions to the
disabled who receive the insured income
The disabled who have reached the age entitling to an old
age pension (Articles 18 and 22) and those who are older, who,
after granting of a state social insurance disability pension,
receive income from which the obligatory state social pension
insurance contributions are calculated and paid, or who receive
state social insurance sickness benefits (including those paid
by the employer for the days of sickness), motherhood,
motherhood (fatherhood) or unemployment benefits (hereinafter
also referred to as the insured income), if they have the
obligatory state social pension insurance pension entitling to
a disability pension (Article 28, Paragraph 1 of Article 46),
shall be paid the basic part of the granted state social
insurance disability pension (Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article
29). Moreover, if their insured income constitute less than the
1.5 amount of minimum monthly salary, they shall be paid a part
of the complementary part of the granted disability pension in
the amount established in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of
this law.
The disabled who have not reached the age entitling to an
old age pension, who after granting the state social insurance
disability pension have the insured income, if those disabled
have the obligatory state social pension insurance period
entitling to a disability pension, except for the disabled of
the 1st group, to whom the requirement of the obligatory period
while paying a pension is not applied, shall be paid:
1) the disabled of the 1st group--the whole granted state
social insurance disability pension irrespective of the insured
income;
2) the disabled of the 2nd and 3rd groups whose insured
income does not exceed the 1.5 amount of the minimum monthly
salary--the whole granted state social insurance disability
pension;
3) the disabled of the 2nd and 3rd groups whose insured
income exceeds the 1.5 amount of the minimum monthly
salary--the basic part of the granted state social insurance
disability pension and 50 per cent of the complementary part.
The disabled listed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article
who receive the insured income are not paid the state social
insurance disability pension if they do not have the obligatory
state social pension insurance period entitling to a disability
pension (except for the disabled of the 1st group specified in
Paragraph 2 of this article to whom the requirement of the
obligatory period, while paying a pension, is not applied)."
Thus, Paragraph 1 of Article 32 (wording of 21 December
2000) of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions established
restrictions of the amounts of disability pensions to the
disabled who have reached the established age entitling to an
old age pension, and to older disabled persons who receive the
insured income.
4. On 8 May 2001, the Seimas adopted the Law on the
Amendment of Articles 23 and 32 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on State Social Insurance Pensions (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 43-1487), by Article 2 whereof
Article 32 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pension was
amended and set forth as follows:
"Article 32. Payment of disability pensions to the
disabled who receive the insured income
The disabled who have reached the age entitling to an old
age pension (Articles 18 and 22) and those who are older, who,
after granting of a state social insurance disability pension,
receive income from which the obligatory state social pension
insurance contributions are calculated and paid, or who receive
state social insurance sickness benefits (including those paid
by the employer for the days of sickness), motherhood,
motherhood (fatherhood) or unemployment benefits (hereinafter
also referred to as the insured income), if they have the
obligatory state social pension insurance period entitling to a
disability pension (Article 28, Paragraph 1 of Article 46),
shall be paid the whole granted state social insurance
disability pension if their insured income does not exceed the
amount of the minimum monthly salary. If the insured income of
the specified persons exceeds the amount of 1 minimum monthly
salary but does not exceed the 1.5 amount of the minimum
monthly salary, they shall be paid the basic part of the
granted state social insurance disability pension (Paragraphs 2
and 4 of Article 29) and a part of the complementary part of
the granted disability pension (hereinafter also referred to as
the supplementary part) which is constituted of the sum of the
following amounts:
1) 50 per cent of the complementary part not exceeding LTL
100;
2) 20 per cent of the complementary part from LTL 100.01
to LTL 200;
3) 10 per cent of the complementary part from LTL 200.01
to 300.
A part of the complementary part of the disability pension
exceeding LTL 300 shall not be paid.
If the insured income of persons specified in Paragraph 1
of this article exceeds the 1.5 amount of the minimum monthly
salary, they are paid the basic part of the granted state
social insurance disability pension.
The disabled who are not of the age entitling to an old
age pension, who after granting the state social insurance
disability pension have the insured income, if those disabled
have the obligatory state social pension insurance period
entitling to a disability pension, except for the disabled of
the 1st group, to whom the requirement of the obligatory period
while paying a pension is not applied, shall be paid:
1) the disabled of the 1st group--the whole granted state
social insurance disability pension irrespective of the insured
income;
2) the disabled of the 2nd and 3rd groups whose insured
income does not exceed the 1.5 amount of the minimum monthly
salary--the whole granted state social insurance disability
pension;
3) the disabled of the 2nd and 3rd groups whose insured
income exceeds the 1.5 amount of the minimum monthly
salary--the basic part of the granted state social insurance
disability pension and 50 per cent of the complementary part.
The disabled specified in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this
Article who receive the insured income are not paid the state
social insurance disability pension if they do not have the
obligatory state social pension insurance period entitling to a
disability pension (except for the disabled of the 1st group
specified in Paragraph 4 of this Article to whom the
requirement of the obligatory period, while paying a pension,
is not applied)."
Thus, Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 32 (wording of 8
may 2001) of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions used to
establish certain restrictions of the amounts of disability
pensions to the disabled who have reached the established age
entitling to an old age pension and to older disabled who
receive the insured income.
5. On 16 January 2003, by Article 3 of the Law on the
Amendment of Article 24 and the Recognition As No Longer Valid
of Article 23 and 32 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
2003, No. 12-437), the Seimas recognised Article 32 of the Law
on State Social Insurance Pensions as no longer valid.
Thus, after Article 32 of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions was recognised as no longer valid, the legal
regulation, according to which the amounts of disability
pensions to the disabled who have reached the established age
entitling to an old age pension and those who were older, and
received the insured income, was eliminated.
6. In the opinion of the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioner, Article 32 (wording of 21 December 2000)
of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions restricted the
amount of the paid state social insurance disability pensions
which have been granted to the disabled who have reached the
established age entitling to an old age pension. In the opinion
of the petitioner, such regulation is in conflict with the
striving for a just harmonious civil society and a state under
the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution,
and Articles 29 and 52 of the Constitution.
Even though in the part of reasoning of the petition it is
requested to investigate the compliance of whole Article 32 of
the Law on State Social insurance Pensions with the
Constitution, it is clear from the arguments set forth in the
petition that the petitioner has doubts as to the
constitutionality of Paragraph 1 (wording of 21 December 2000)
of Article 32 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions.
After the Seimas amended Paragraph 1 of Article 32
(wording of 21 December 2000) of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions by the 8 May 2001 Law on the Amendment of
Articles 23 and 32 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions, Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 32 (wording of 8 May
2001) of this law began to regulate the relations that used to
regulated by the said paragraph.
Taking account of the arguments set forth in the petition,
the Constitutional Court will investigate in the present case
whether Paragraph 1 of Article 32 (wording of 21 December 2000)
of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions and Paragraphs 1,
2 and 3 of Article 32 (wording of 8 may 2001) of this law are
not in conflict with the Constitution.
7. Paragraph 1 of Article 32 (wording of 21 December 2000)
of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions used to establish
the legal regulation according to which the disabled persons
who had reached the established age entitling to an old age
pensions and older, who, after granting of a state social
insurance disability pension, received income from which the
obligatory state social pension insurance contributions were
calculated and paid, or who received state social insurance
sickness benefits (including those paid by the employer for the
days of sickness), motherhood, motherhood (fatherhood) or
unemployment benefits, if they had the obligatory state social
pension insurance period entitling to a disability pension,
should be paid the basic part of the granted state social
insurance disability pension.
In case when the insured income of these persons did not
exceed the 1.5 amount of the minimum monthly salary, they used
to be paid a part of the complementary part of the granted
disability pension.
7.1. It has been mentioned that Paragraph 1 of Article 32
(wording of 18 July 1994) of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions, which had been valid before the entry into force of
Paragraph 1 of Article 32 (wording of 21 December 2000)
disputed by the petitioner, used to establish that the disabled
who have reached the established age entitling to an old age
pension and older were to be paid the whole granted state
social insurance pension irrespective of their income.
While comparing the legal regulation established in
Paragraph 1 of Article 32 (wording of 21 December 2000) of the
Law on State Social Insurance Pensions with the legal
regulation established in Paragraph 1 of this article (wording
of 18 July 1994), it is clear that the disputed legal
regulation used to establish restrictions of the amount of the
state social insurance disability pension to persons who
reached the established age entitling to an old age pensions
and older, who, after granting of a state social insurance
disability pension, received income from which the obligatory
state social pension insurance contributions were calculated
and paid, or who received state social insurance sickness
benefits (including those paid by the employer for the days of
sickness), motherhood, motherhood (fatherhood) or unemployment
benefits, if they had the obligatory state social pension
insurance period entitling to a disability pension, which had
not been established in Paragraph 1 of Article 32 (wording of
18 July 1994) of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions.
According to Paragraph 1 of Article 32 (wording of 18 July
1994) of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions, the
disabled who had reached the established age entitling to an
old age pension and older, used to be paid the whole granted
state social insurance disability pension irrespective of their
income, while according to Paragraph 1 of this article (wording
of 21 December 2000) the said persons were paid not the whole
granted state social insurance disability pension, but only the
basic part of the granted state social insurance disability
pension. Moreover, if their insured income constituted less
than the 1.5 amount of the minimum monthly salary, they were
paid only a part of the complementary part of the granted
disability pension.
7.2. It has been held in this Constitutional Court ruling
that the provisions of Article 52 of the Constitution, which
guarantee the right of the citizens to pensionary maintenance
and social assistance, oblige the state to establish sufficient
means for the implementation and legal protection of this
right. The law establishes what persons have to receive a
disability pension, their age, the grounds, conditions and the
amounts of the granting and payment of this pension. While
establishing that, the legislator must pay heed to the norms
and principles of the Constitution. It has been also mentioned
that, according to the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law and Article 52 of the Constitution, in
case a certain pension has been granted and paid to a person,
it has to be paid further, i.e. is not permitted to terminate
its payment or reduce the amount of the paid pension.
While comparing the legal regulation established in
Paragraph 1 of Article 32 (wording of 21 December 2000) of the
Law on State Social Insurance Pensions with the legal
regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 32 (wording of
18 July 1994) of this law, it becomes clear that the legal
regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 32 (wording of
21 December 2000) limited the amount of the granted and paid
state social insurance disability pension. Such legal
regulation denies the right to receive the whole granted and
previously paid disability pension which is entrenched in
Article 52 of the Constitution, as well as ignores the
principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal
certainty and legal security. This way the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law is also violated.
7.3. Taking account of the arguments set forth one is to
conclude that Paragraph 1 of Article 32 (wording of 21 December
2000) of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions to the
extent which established that persons who have reached the age
entitling to an old age pension and older disabled who, after
granting of a state social insurance disability pension,
receive income from which the obligatory state social pension
insurance contributions are calculated and paid, or who receive
state social insurance sickness benefits (including those paid
by the employer for the days of sickness), motherhood,
motherhood (fatherhood) or unemployment benefits, if they have
the obligatory state social pension insurance period entitling
to a disability pension, shall be paid the basic part of the
granted state social insurance disability pension, and which
did not establish that the whole granted and previously paid
state social insurance disability pension must be paid, was in
conflict with Article 52 of the Constitution and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
8. It has been mentioned that the Seimas amended Article
32 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions by Article 2
of the 8 May 2001 Law on the Amendment of Articles 23 and 32 of
the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions. Paragraphs 1, 2 and
3 of Article 32 (wording of 8 May 2001) of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions used to regulated the relations which
were previously regulated by Paragraph 1 of Article 32 (wording
of 21 December 2000) of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions.
Paragraph 1 of Article 32 (wording of 8 May 2001) of the
Law on State Social Insurance Pensions used to establish that
the disabled who had reached the age entitling to an old age
pension (Articles 18 and 22) and those who were older, who,
after granting of a state social insurance disability pension,
received income from which the obligatory state social pension
insurance contributions were calculated and paid, or who
received state social insurance sickness benefits (including
those paid by the employer for the days of sickness),
motherhood, motherhood (fatherhood) or unemployment benefits,
if they had the obligatory state social pension insurance
period entitling to a disability pension (Article 28, Paragraph
1 of Article 46), should be paid the whole granted state social
insurance disability pension if their insured income did not
exceed the amount of a minimum monthly salary. If the insured
income of the specified persons exceeded the amount of 1
minimum monthly salary but did not exceed the 1.5 amount of
minimum monthly salary, they should be paid the basic part of
the granted state social insurance disability pension
(Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 29) and a part of the
complementary part of the granted disability pension (50 per
cent of the complementary part not exceeding LTL 100; 20 per
cent of the complementary part from LTL 100.01 to LTL 200; 10
per cent of the complementary part from LTL 200.01 to LTL 300).
Paragraph 2 of Article 32 (wording of 8 May 2001) of the
Law on State Social Insurance Pensions used to establish that a
part of the complementary part of a disability pension which
exceeded LTL 300 should not be paid, while Paragraph 3 used to
establish that the persons listed in Paragraph 1 of this
article should be paid the basic part of the granted state
social insurance disability pension if their insured income
exceeded the 1.5 amount of the minimum monthly salary.
9. While comparing the legal regulation established in
Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 32 (wording of 8 May 2001) of
the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions with the legal
regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 32 (wording of
18 July 1994) of this law, it is clear that Paragraphs 1, 2 and
3 of Article 32 (wording of 8 May 2001) of this law also used
to limit the amount of the granted and paid state social
insurance disability pension. Such legal regulation denied the
right to receive the granted disability pension which is
entrenched in Article 52 of the Constitution, as well as
ignored the principles of the protection of legitimate
expectations, legal certainty and legal security and violated
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
10. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 32 (wording of 8
May 2001) of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions to the
extent which established that the disabled who had reached the
age entitling to an old age pension (Articles 18 and 22) and
those who were older, who, after granting of a state social
insurance disability pension, received income from which the
obligatory state social pension insurance contributions are
calculated and paid, or who received state social insurance
sickness benefits (including those paid by the employer for the
days of sickness), motherhood, motherhood (fatherhood) or
unemployment benefits, should be paid not the whole granted and
previously paid state social insurance disability pension, was
in conflict with Article 52 of the Constitution and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
11. Having held that disputed Paragraph 1 of Article 32
(wording of 21 December 2000) of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions and Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 32
(wording of 8 May 2001) of this law were in conflict with
Article 52 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle
of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will
not investigate whether they were not in conflict with Article
29 of the Constitution.
V
On the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 July 1995)
of Article 48 of the Law on State Social Insurance pensions and
Item 4 of the Law "On the Amendment and Supplement of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions"
adopted by the Seimas on 28 September 1995 with Articles 23 and
52 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law.
1. On 4 July 1995, the Seimas adopted the Law "On the
Amendment and Supplement of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions" (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 1995, No. 59-1475), by Item 5 whereof Article 48 of the
Law on State Social Insurance Pensions was supplemented by
Paragraph 2 of the following content: "While recalculating
granted pensions, the coefficient of the insured income of the
person shall be not larger than 5."
On 28 September 1995, by Item 4 of the Law "On the
Amendment and Supplement of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions" (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 1995, No. 84-1901), the Seimas recognised Paragraph 4
(wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 50 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions, which used to establish that the
amount of the recalculated or newly granted, under the Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions, pension shall not be limited,
as no longer valid.
2. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the
petitioner, requests to investigate whether Paragraph 2
(wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 48 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions and Item 4 of the Law "On the
Amendment and Supplement of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions" are not in conflict with
Articles 23 and 52 of the Constitution and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
In the opinion of the petitioner, Paragraph 2 (wording of
4 July 1995) of Article 48 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions established the maximum coefficient 5 of the insured
income, while Item 4 of the Law "On the Amendment and
Supplement of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions" adopted by the Seimas on 28 September 1995
abolished Paragraph 4 of Article 50 of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions under which, according to the petitioner,
the amount of the recalculated of newly granted, under this
law, pension is not limited. In the opinion of the petitioner,
persons to whom pensions were recalculated according to the
rules of the recalculation of pensions as established by the
Law on State Social Insurance Pensions (wording of 18 July
1994) and without limitation of the coefficient of the insured
income and the amount of the recalculated pension, due to such
legal regulation suffered restrictions of property nature. The
petitioner has doubts whether such legal regulation is not in
conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law, which consists of such elements as the protection
of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and legal security,
as well as with Articles 52 and 23 of the Constitution.
3. The legal regulation disputed by the petitioner is
related with the reform of the system of state social insurance
pensions. On 18 July 1994, the Seimas adopted the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions, by Article 45 whereof the ways for
the recalculation of pensions which had been granted before the
entry into force of the law were established. According to
Paragraph 1 of this article, pensions to the persons, who had
been granted state social insurance pensions and disability
pensions before the entry into force of this law, are
recalculated, according to this law, on the basis of the data
concerning the salary and the period fixed in the pension file.
Before the entry in to force of this law (i.e. until 1 January
1995), at the request of pensioners, the data contained in a
pension file concerning the state social pension insurance
period or the one equalled to it could be supplemented. The
data of a file concerning the salary are not supplemented.
Upon the request of persons, who have been granted a state
social insurance pension before the entry into force of the Law
on State Social Insurance Pensions and to whom after the state
social pension insurance period increased by not less than 3
years, the pension could be granted anew according to the
provisions of this law concerning the newly granted pensions.
Territorial divisions of the Board of the State Social
Insurance Fund had to start the payment of the recalculated
pensions not later than after 6 months from the entry into
force of this law. Before that time the pensioner used to be
paid the granted pension by indexing it according to the
procedure established in Article 50 of this law. If the
recalculated pension was bigger, the difference used to be
compensated to the pensioner as from the day of the entry into
force of the law.
It has to be noted that Article 48 (wording of 18 July
1994) of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions used to
establish the way of calculation of the coefficient of a
person's insured income while recalculating the granted
pension. According to this article, while recalculating the
granted pensions, the coefficient of a person's insured income
(Article 16) had to be calculated on the basis of the data
fixed in a pension file according to the following procedure:
- if a pension had been granted on the basis of a person's
salary average recorded in the file, which had been calculated
according to the data on a person's salary until 1 January
1991, this average was to be divided by the average monthly
salary of a respective period in Lithuania;
- if a pension had been granted on the basis of the data
on a person's salary after 1 January 1991, monthly salaries
recorded in the file were to be divided by the national monthly
salary average of that month of a respective year, and the
average of the calculated quotients were to be considered as
the coefficient of the insured income. In this case the average
monthly salary before 1 January 1991 was considered to be equal
to an average monthly salary of that year in Lithuania.
4. Article 49 (wording of 18 July 1994) of the Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions established the rule of
non-reducing of the recalculated pensions:
"If upon the recalculation of a pension it becomes smaller
than the previous amount, the pensioner shall be paid the
previously granted indexed pension indexing it further
according to the procedure established in Article 50 of this
law.
If a person, whose pension is recalculated, has the right
to receive the pension of the victim according to the Law on
State Pensions, this pension shall be granted to him together
with the recalculated state social insurance pension. If the
sum of both pensions is smaller than the previously received
pension, the previous pension is further paid indexing it
according to the procedure established in Article 50 of this
Law."
5. Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 50 of
the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions used to establish
that the amount of recalculated or newly granted according to
this law pension shall not be limited.
6. Thus, the said provision of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions (wording of 18 July 1994) established such
legal regulation according to which state social insurance old
age pensions granted to persons before the entry into force of
this law were recalculated without applying the maximum amount
of the coefficient of a person's insured income and without
limiting the amount of the recalculated pension.
7. It has been mentioned that Paragraph 2 (wording of 4
July 1995) of Article 48 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions established that while recalculating the granted
pensions, the coefficient of a person's insured income shall be
not more than 5.
On 28 September 1995, by Item 4 of the Law "On the
Amendment and Supplement of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions", the Seimas recognised
Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 50 of the Law
on State Social Insurance Pensions, which used to establish
that the amount of recalculated or newly granted, according to
this law, pension shall not be limited, as no longer valid.
It needs to be noted that the legal regulation entrenched
in Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 48 of the
Law on State Social Insurance Pensions and Item 4 of the Law
"On the Amendment and Supplement of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on State Social Insurance Pensions" is to be assessed as a
whole, therefore the Constitutional Court will investigate
whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 48 of
the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions and Item 4 of the
Law "On the Amendment and Supplement of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions" are not in
conflict with the Constitution.
8. It has been held in this Constitutional Court ruling
that, according to Article 52 of the Constitution, a duty
arises to the state to establish sufficient means of the
implementation and legal defence of a person's right to receive
an old age pension. In the context of the case at issue the
provisions of Article 52 of the Constitution are to be
construed taking account of the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law and Article 23 of the Constitution.
It has been mentioned that the protection of legitimate
expectations, legal certainty and legal security are
inseparable elements of the principle of a state under the rule
of law. These principles inter alia imply that the state must
fulfil undertaken obligations to a person. The protection of
acquired rights is one of the elements of the principle of
legitimate expectations. The granted and paid old age pension
is protected and defended according to Article 23 of the
Constitution.
9. The provisions of Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 July 1995)
of Article 48 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions and
Item 4 of the Law "On the Amendment and Supplement of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions"
are related with the reform of state social insurance pensions.
It has been mentioned that the constitutional protection of
acquired rights and legitimate expectations does not mean that
the system of pensionary maintenance established by law may not
be reorganised. While reorganising this system, the
Constitution must be observed in every case. The system of
pensions may be reorganised only by law, only guaranteeing the
old age and disability pensions provided for by the
Constitution, as well as observing undertaken obligations by
the state, which are not in conflict with Constitution, to pay
corresponding payments to persons who meet the requirements
established by the law. If, while reorganising the pensionary
system, the pensions established by the laws which are not
directly specified in Article 52 of the Constitution were
eliminated, or the legal regulation of these pensions were
amended in essence, the legislator would be obligated to
establish a just mechanism for compensation of the existing
losses to the persons who had been granted and paid such
pensions.
10. According to the legal regulation established in the
Law on State Social Insurance Pensions (wording of 18 July
1994), state social insurance pensions granted to persons
before the entry into force of this law were recalculated
without limiting the amount of the coefficient of the insured
income. Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 48 of
the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions established a rule
that, while recalculating the granted pension, the coefficient
of a person's insured income is not larger than 5. Thus, a
newly recalculated pension, which had been granted before the
entry into force of the law, would be reduced to some extent to
persons to whom the coefficient of the insured income was not
larger than 5 while recalculating the granted pension according
to the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions (wording of 18
July 1994). It has to be noted that upon the entry into force
of Item 4 of the Law "On the Amendment and Supplement of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions",
Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 50 of the Law
on State Social Insurance Pensions, which used to establish
that the amount of the recalculated pension is not limited,
became no longer valid.
11. While deciding whether the legal regulation
established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 July 1995) of Article
48 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions and Item 4 of
the Law "On the Amendment and Supplement of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions" is not in
conflict with the Constitution, it has to be noted that upon
the entry into force of Item 4 of the Law "On the Amendment and
Supplement of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions" Article 49 of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions remained in force, which established the
rule of non-reduction of the recalculated pension, i.e. a
person, to whom the pension was recalculated applying the
coefficient not larger than coefficient 5 of the insured
income, may not be paid a smaller pension comparing to the
amount of a pension which had been granted and paid before the
entry into force of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions.
Thus, this regulation ensured sufficient protection of the
right to receive an old age pension entrenched in Article 52 of
the Constitution.
12. In the opinion of the petitioner, upon establishing by
the disputed provision a rule that the coefficient of the
insured income, while recalculating the granted pension, may
not be larger than 5, the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law, which consists of such elements as the
protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and
legal security, was violated, because the persons who had been
applied the coefficient larger than 5 while recalculating the
granted pensions according to the previous regulation,
reasonably expected to receive a bigger old age pension.
The Constitutional Court notes that, according to the
Constitution, only those expectations of the person in
relations with the state are protected and defended, which
arise from the Constitution itself or from the laws and other
legal acts that are not in conflict with the Constitution. Only
these expectations of the person in relations with the state
are considered legitimate. It has to be noted alongside that no
provision of the Constitution may be construed so that the
content of another constitutional provision would be distorted
or denied, since thus the essence of the whole constitutional
regulation would be distorted and the balance of values
consolidated in the Constitution would be disturbed.
It has been mentioned that the amount of an old age
pension which is granted and paid to persons, when the system
of old age pensions is based on social insurance, may not be
independent or be insignificantly dependent on how long and in
what amounts contributions used to be paid creating material
preconditions for the payment of these pensions. A person who
pays himself contributions of the state social insurance of the
established amount or someone pays them for him, has the right
to receive an old age pension on the grounds established by the
law. A different assessment should be given to a legitimate
expectation which arises from a legal situation, when one or
another increase of previously granted old age pension is
determined not by the increase of the person's contribution
creating material preconditions for the payment of these
pensions, but the rules of the recalculation of these pensions
which were adopted while implementing the reform of the
pensionary system. The establishment of such rules is within
the discretion of the legislature. While establishing them, the
legislator must pay heed to the requirements of justice and
social harmony. Obligations of the state to pay the pensions of
a certain amount, when the payments are based on the state
social insurance, may not be separated from the person's
contribution creating material preconditions for the payment of
this pension, the time of the payment of such contributions and
their amounts. The establishment of rules of the recalculation
of pensions, because of which the amount of an old age pension
of the person increases, may not be in itself considered
sufficient grounds for legitimate expectations to arise.
Under Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 48
of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions, state social
insurance old age pensions previously granted to persons have
been recalculated applying the coefficient of the insured
income not larger than 5. Thus, the recalculation rule has been
amended in comparison with that established in the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions (wording of 18 July 1994). While
assessing the compliance of the disputed provisions with the
Constitution, one has to remember that upon their entry into
force the rule of non-reduction of the recalculated pensions
established in Article 49 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions remained in force, according to which a person, to
whom a pension has been recalculated applying the coefficient
of the insured income not larger than 5, may not be paid a
smaller pension comparing to the previous amount of the pension
which had been granted and paid before the entry into force of
the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions. Thus, there exist
no grounds to maintain that Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 July
1995) of Article 48 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions is in conflict with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law.
13. Having held that disputed Paragraph 2 (wording of 4
July 1995) of Article 48 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions and Item 4 of the Law "On the Amendment and Supplement
of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions" adopted by the Seimas on 28 September 1995 are not in
conflict with Article 52 of the Constitution and the principle
of a state under the rule of law, one is to hold that they are
not in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution either.
VI
On the compliance of the provisions of Paragraph 3 of
Article 3 (wordings of 20 February 2001 and 2 July 2002) of the
Law on State Pensions with Articles 23 and 52 of the
Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law.
1. Article 3 (wording of 22 December 1994) of the Law on
State Pensions used to establish:
"A person who has the right to receive several state
pensions shall be paid only one of them upon his choice with
the exception of the state widows and orphans pension which
also may be paid as one in conjunction with one of the state
pensions.
State social insurance pensions are paid regardless of the
fact whether state pensions are paid or not, unless the laws
establish otherwise."
On 4 July 1995, by Article 2 of the Law "On the Amendments
and Supplement of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State
Pensions" (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1995, No.
59-1476), the Seimas supplemented Article 3 of the Law on State
Pensions with following Paragraph 3: "The amount of state
pensions established in Items 3-5 of Article 1 of this Law in
conjunction with state social insurance pension to one person
may not exceed the amount of one and a half average monthly
salary of the employees of the state sector, joint-stock and
close companies of the month preceding the last month before
the payment of the pension as published by the Department of
Statistics at the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. The
institution paying the state pension shall apply limitation of
the amount of the pension."
Thus, such legal regulation established the limitation of
state pensions established in Items 3-5 of Article 1 of this
law in conjunction with the state social insurance pension to
one person, which had not existed in Article 3 of the Law on
State Pensions (wording of 22 December 1994).
2. On 4 November 1997, by Article 2 of the Law on the
Amendment and Supplement of Articles 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13
and 14 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1997,
No. 104-2622), the Seimas amended Article 3 of the Law on State
Pensions and set it forth as follows:
"Article 3. Right to choose the type of the state pension
A person who has the right to receive several state
pensions shall be paid only one of them upon his choice with
the exception of the state widows and orphans pension which
also may be paid as one in conjunction with one of the state
pensions.
A person who is entitled to a state widows pension for the
deceased recipient of a state pension specified in Items 2 and
4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this law and a state social
insurance widows pension shall, upon his choice, be granted and
paid either a state widows pension, or a state social insurance
widows pension.
The amount of state pensions established in Items 3-5 of
Article 1 of this Law in conjunction with state social
insurance pension to one person may not exceed the amount of
one and a half average monthly salary of the employees of the
state sector, joint-stock and close companies of the month
preceding the last month before the payment of the pension as
published by the Department of Statistics at the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania. The institution paying the state
pension shall apply limitation of the amount of the pension."
On 20 February 2001, by Article 1 of the Law on the
Amendment of Article 3 of the Law on State Pensions (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 21-693), the Seimas decided
to delete the word "one and a half", to enter the word
"quarter" instead of the word "month", to enter words "the
month for which a state pension is paid" instead of words "the
payment of the pension", to enter words "published in the
economy of the country" instead of words "published of economy
employees of the Republic of Lithuania", to enter numbers and
the word "1.5 amount" after the word "salary" in Paragraph 3 of
Article 3 of the Law on State Pensions and to set forth this
paragraph in the following way: "The amount of state pensions
established in Items 3-5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this
Law either of each separately or in conjunction with a state
social insurance pension to one person may not exceed the 1.5
amount of the statistical average monthly salary in the economy
of the country, which is paid in the quarter before last that
precedes the month when state pension is paid as published by
the Department of Statistics at the Government of the Republic
of Lithuania. The institution paying the state pension shall
apply limitation of the amount of the pension."
On 2 July 2002, by Article 1 of the Law on the Amendment
and Supplement of Articles 1 and 3 of the Law on State Pensions
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 73-3089), the
Seimas amended Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Law on State
Pensions and set it forth as follows: "The amount of each state
pension established in Items 3-6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of
this Law as well as the total sum to one person of the amount
of this pension, and state pensions and state social insurance
pensions granted to the same person according to Paragraph 1 of
this Law may not exceed the 1.5 amount of the statistical
average monthly salary in the economy of the country, which is
paid in the quarter before last that precedes the month when
state pension is paid as published by the Department of
Statistics at the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. The
institution paying the state pension shall apply limitation of
the amount of the pension".
3. Even though in the part of reasoning of the petition it
is requested to investigate the constitutionality of the
provisions of Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Law on State
Pensions which limit the payment of the total sum of state
pensions and state social insurance pensions granted to the
same person without exceeding the 1.5 amount of the statistical
average monthly salary in the economy of the country, which is
paid in the quarter before last that precedes the month when
state pension is paid, it is clear from the arguments of the
petition that one doubts as to the compliance of the provisions
concerning limitation of the overall amount of state pension of
the officials and servicemen and state social insurance
pensions with the Constitution.
Taking account of that, the Constitutional Court will
investigate whether the following is not in conflict with
Articles 23 and 52 of the Constitution and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law:
1) The provision "the amount of state pensions established
in Items 3-5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this law <...> in
conjunction with a state social insurance pension to one person
may not exceed the 1.5 amount of the statistical average
monthly salary in the economy of the country, which is paid in
the quarter before last that precedes the month when state
pension is paid as published by the Department of Statistics at
the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of Paragraph 3
(wording of 20 February 2001) of Article 3 of the Law on State
Pensions to the extent that its formula "state pensions
established in Items 3-5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this
law" includes state pensions of the officials and servicemen
established in Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this law;
2) The provision "the total sum to one person of the
amount of this pension, and state pensions and state social
insurance pensions granted to the same person may not exceed
the 1.5 amount of the statistical average monthly salary in the
economy of the country, which is paid in the quarter before
last that precedes the month when state pension is paid as
published by the Department of Statistics at the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 2 July
2002) of Article 3 of the Law on State Pensions to the extent
that its formula "of each state pension established in Items
3-6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this law" includes state
pensions of the officials and servicemen established in Item 4
of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this law.
4. It has to be noted in the context of the case at issue
that, under Article 3 (wording of 22 December 1994) of the Law
on State Pensions, a person, who had the right to receive
several state pensions, had to be, upon his choice, paid only
one of them with the exception of the state widows and orphans
pension which could also be paid in conjunction with only one
of state pensions. State social insurance pension used to be
paid irrespective of the fact whether state pensions were paid,
unless the laws established otherwise. Therefore, the amount of
a pension was not limited.
It has been mentioned that Paragraph 3 (wording of 4 July
1995) of Article 3 of the Law on State Pensions used to
establish that the amount of state pensions established in
Items 3-5 of Article 1 of this law in conjunction with state
social insurance pension to one person could not exceed the
amount of one and a half average monthly salary of the
employees of the state sector, joint-stock and close companies
of the month preceding the last month before the payment of the
pension as published by the Department of Statistics at the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania. The institution paying
the state pension used to apply the limitation of the amount of
the pension. Thus, according to such legal regulation, upon the
entry into force of Paragraph 3 (wording of 4 July 1995) of
Article 3 of the Law on State Pensions, the amount of the
granted and paid state pension in conjunction with a state
social insurance pension was limited to persons who had been
granted and paid state pensions according to the previous legal
regulation.
It has been held in this Constitutional Court ruling that
the amendments of the established legal regulation
deteriorating the pensionary maintenance are possible only when
there appears an extraordinary situation in the state (economic
crisis, natural disaster etc.) when there is objective lack
funds for the fulfilment of the state functions and satisfying
of public interests, as well as the payment of pensions. These
amendments must be necessary for the protection of other
constitutional values and this can be done by law only, without
violating the Constitution. Therefore, if the legal regulation
groundlessly reducing the granted and paid pension were
established, Articles 23 and 52 of the Constitution and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law would
be violated.
It has been mentioned that, according to Paragraph 3
(wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 3 of the Law on State
Pensions, the amount of state pensions established in Items 3-5
of Article 1 of this law in conjunction with state social
insurance pension to one person could not exceed the amount of
one and a half average monthly salary of the employees of the
state sector, joint-stock and close companies of the month
preceding the last month before the payment of the pension as
published by the Department of Statistics at the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania. Thus, such legal regulation limited
the amount of the granted and paid state pension in conjunction
with a state social insurance pension to persons who had been
granted and paid state pensions under the previous legal
regulation.
5. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Paragraph 3 (wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 3
of the Law on State Pensions to the extent which limited the
amount of the granted and paid state pension in conjunction
with a state social insurance pension was in conflict with
Articles 23 and 52 of the Constitution and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
6. According to Article 1 of the Law on State Pensions, in
the Republic of Lithuania the state pension of the President of
the Republic, state pensions of the Republic of Lithuania of
the first and second degree, state pensions of victims, state
pensions of the officials and servicemen, state pensions of
scientists, and state pensions of judges are established.
According to the Law on State Pensions, some of the pensions
established therein are granted and paid for special merits to
Lithuania (for example, state pensions of the first and second
degree of the Republic of Lithuania), the granting and payment
of other state pensions is related to the corresponding service
(for example, service in the systems of the Interior,
prosecutor's office, etc.) or work (for example, scientific
work). Some other state pensions are of compensational nature
and are paid to persons who have been recognised victims (for
example, persons who became disabled because of the aggression
carried out on 11-13 January 1991 and later events,
participants of the resistance to the occupations of 1940-1990,
etc.).
The relations of granting and payment of different types
of state pensions are also regulated by the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen
of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State
Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor's Office, the
Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State
Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter, the Law on the
President of the Republic of Lithuania, the Law on State
Pensions of Judges of the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic
of Lithuania Provisional Law on State Pensions of Scientists.
The said state pensions are paid from the State Budget.
7. Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on State
Pensions establishes state pensions of officials and
servicemen. The relations of state pensions of officials and
servicemen are regulated by the Law on the State Pensions of
Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special
Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the
Prosecutor's Office, the Department of Prisons and of the
Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to
the Latter. Under this law, the following persons have the
right to the state pension of officials and servicemen:
officials of the Ministry of the Interior, the police, the
State Border Security Service and other institutions of the
Interior, officers of service units, servicemen and
non-commissioned officers of reenlistee service of the
interior, officials of the Special Investigation Service,
servicemen of professional military service, officials of the
system of the State Security Department, officials of the
prosecutor's office, officials of the Department of Prisons and
of the establishments and state enterprises which are
subordinate to the latter. In case of death of these persons on
duty or during the training for reasons related to the service
or training, their spouses and children have the right to
receive the state widows and orphans pensions of officials and
servicemen.
The state pension of officials and servicemen is granted
and paid to the said officials and servicemen upon their
retirement if they meet the conditions established by the law.
Such conditions are of varied nature: the person has either
served a certain number of years, or has served a certain
number of years and reached the age of old age pension, or the
person is recognised disabled for reasons related to the
service, or has been dismissed from service because of health,
etc.
The officials and servicemen who acquire the right to the
state pension of officials and servicemen do not lose the right
to other state pensions providing the laws do not provide
otherwise. According to the valid legal regulation, the said
officials and servicemen also receive the state social
insurance pension provided they meet the conditions required in
order to receive this pension.
The pensions to the officials and servicemen and their
families are granted and paid by the Ministry of the Interior,
the Special Investigation Service, the State Security
Department, the Ministry of National Defence, the Office of the
Prosecutor General or the Department of Prisons depending on
which of these institutions the recipient of the pension served
in last. Under the valid laws, the granting and payment of the
state pension of officials and servicemen is based neither on
contributions of social insurance, nor on any other special
payments. The state pension of officials and servicemen is
calculated and paid while taking account of the amount of
remuneration of the official or serviceman.
8. It has been mentioned that Paragraph 3 of Article 3
(wording of 20 February of 2001) of the Law on State Pensions
provides that the amount of state pensions established in Items
3-5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this law in conjunction with
a state social insurance pension to one person may not exceed
the 1.5 amount of the statistical average monthly salary in the
economy of the country, which is paid in the quarter before
last that precedes the month when state pension is paid as
published by the Department of Statistics at the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania.
This provision establishes the maximum amount of a state
pension in conjunction with a state social insurance pension to
one person. In the context of the case at issue, the rule
established in Paragraph 3 of Article 3 (wording of 20 February
of 2001) of the Law on State Pensions means that a person who
has been granted the state pension of officials and servicemen
and the state social insurance pension may not receive the
total amount of these pensions that would exceed the 1.5 amount
of the statistical average monthly salary in the economy of the
country, which is paid in the quarter before last that precedes
the month when state pension is paid as published by the
Department of Statistics at the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania.
According to the law, the institution paying the state
pension is assigned to apply the limitation of the amount of
the pension.
9. In the opinion of the petitioner, such limitation of
the amount of granted state and social insurance pensions
without paying out the whole total sum of them violates the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. The
petitioner maintains that in such case a person looses a part
of payments that belong to him, thus there are grounds to
believe that these provisions violate the right of the person
to property guaranteed by Article 23 of the Constitution and
Article 52 of the Constitution which entrenches the right of
citizens to receive the whole granted pension which is
guaranteed by the state.
10. While deciding whether the provision "the amount of
state pensions established in Items 3-5 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 1 of this law <...> in conjunction with a state social
insurance pension to one person may not exceed the 1.5 amount
of the statistical average monthly salary in the economy of the
country, which is paid in the quarter before last that precedes
the month when state pension is paid as published by the
Department of Statistics at the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania" of Paragraph 3 of Article 3 (wording of 20 February
of 2001) of the Law on State Pensions is not in conflict with
the Constitution to the extent that its formula "state pensions
established in Items 3-5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this
law" includes state pensions of the officials and servicemen
established in Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this law,
it has to be noted that the state pension of officials and
servicemen differs in its origin and nature from state social
insurance pensions (thus, from the old age pension as well).
It has been mentioned that the state pension of officials
and servicemen is paid to persons for the service to the State
of Lithuania and is paid from the state budget. While
establishing what persons are granted and paid the state
pension of officials and servicemen, grounds and condition for
granting and payment of the state pension of officials and
servicemen, as well as the amounts of this pension, the
legislator is bound by the constitutional imperative of social
harmony, the principles of justice, reasonableness and
proportionality. The granting and payment of such a pension may
not become a privilege, the legislator must take account of the
peculiarity of the service, nature of a concrete office and of
other significant circumstances.
It has also been mentioned that Article 52 of the
Constitution establishes the bases of pensionary maintenance
and social assistance. Under the Constitution, other pensions
or social assistance than those specified in Article 52 of the
Constitution may be established by the law. Pensions for a
certain service to the State of Lithuania may be established by
the law as well. While establishing such a pension for service,
the legislator is bound by the norms and principles of the
Constitution. While adopting a law establishing what persons
are granted pensions for service, the bases and conditions for
granting and payment of these pensions, as well as the amounts
of this pension, the legislator in every case must pay heed to
the norms and principles of the Constitution, the imperatives
of an open, just, harmonious civil society and a state under
the rule of law entrenched in the Constitution.
While establishing the state pension granted for the
service of the officials and servicemen which is paid from the
state budget, the legislator also has the discretion to
establish the maximum amount of such pension which is paid
either separately or in conjunction with the state social
insurance pension. It is important that the establishment of
such amount not deny the imperative of social harmony, justice,
reasonableness and proportionality. According to the
established legal regulation, a person who will be granted and
paid a state pension of the officials and servicemen, is aware
in advance of what are the conditions of the payment and
granting of this pensions as well as its amounts. In the
disputed provision the legislator has established that the
amount of the state pension, and the amount of the state
pension of the officials and servicemen in conjunction with the
state social insurance pension to one person among them, may
not exceed the 1.5 amount of the statistical average monthly
salary in the economy of the country, which is paid in the
quarter before last that precedes the month when state pension
is paid as published by the Department of Statistics at the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania.
While assessing the compliance of the legal regulation
entrenched in the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 3
(wording of 20 February 2001) of the Law on State Pensions with
the Constitution, it has to be noted that the state has the
duty to fulfil those obligations of proprietary nature, which
it has undertaken establishing by the law such legal regulation
according to which the person who meets conditions provided by
the law, acquires the right to the state pension of the
officials and servicemen. In its 4 July 2003 ruling the
Constitutional Court held that, under Article 23 of the
Constitution, the persons who have been granted and paid the
state pensions of officials and servicemen have the right to
demand that the payments be paid further in the amounts which
were granted and paid earlier.
The maximum amount of the state pension in conjunction
with the state social insurance pension to one person, which
may not exceed the 1.5 amount of the statistical average
monthly salary in the economy of the country, which is paid in
the quarter before last that precedes the month when state
pension is paid as published by the Department of Statistics at
the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, entrenched in the
disputed provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 3 (wording of 20
February 2001) of the Law on State Pensions does not reduce the
amount of a pension which has already been granted and paid.
Thus, this legal regulation does not deny the duty of the state
to pay the state pension of the officials and servicemen for
service, which arises from the obligation of the state,
entrenched in the law, to pay the state pension of the granted
mount to the person who meets the conditions established by the
law. Thus, the are no grounds to maintain that the disputed
provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 3 (wording of 20 February
2001) of the Law on State Pensions was in conflict with
Articles 23 and 52 of the Constitution and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
11. Taking account of the arguments set forth one is to
conclude that the provision "the amount of state pensions
established in Items 3-5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this
law <...> in conjunction with a state social insurance pension
to one person may not exceed the 1.5 amount of the statistical
average monthly salary in the economy of the country, which is
paid in the quarter before last that precedes the month when
state pension is paid as published by the Department of
Statistics at the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of
Paragraph 3 of Article 3 (wording of 20 February 2001) of the
Law on State Pensions to the extent that its formula "state
pensions established in Items 3-5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1
of this law" includes state pensions of the officials and
servicemen established in Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of
this law was not in conflict with Articles 23 and 52 of the
Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law.
12. Having compared the disputed provision of Paragraph 3
of Article 3 (wording of 20 February 2001) of the Law on State
Pensions with the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 3
(wording of 2 July 2002) of the Law on State Pensions "the
total sum to one person of the amount of this pension, and
state pensions and state social insurance pensions granted to
the same person may not exceed the 1.5 amount of the
statistical average monthly salary in the economy of the
country, which is paid in the quarter before last that precedes
the month when state pension is paid as published by the
Department of Statistics at the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania" to the extent that its formula "of each state
pension established in Items 3-6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of
this law" includes state pensions of the officials and
servicemen established in Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of
this law, it is clear that they entrench basically the same
rule of limitation of the maximum amount of the total sum of
the state pension and state social insurance pension granted to
a person. In this respect the differences of the formulas
employed therein do not alter the essence of the legal
regulation.
13. Taking account of these circumstances and to the fact
that it has been held in this Constitutional Court ruling that
the disputed provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 3 (wording of
20 February 2001) of the Law on State Pensions to the extent
which establishes the state pensions of the officials and
servicemen was not in conflict with Articles 23 and 52 of the
Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law, one is also to hold that the provision "the
total sum to one person of the amount of this pension, and
state pensions and state social insurance pensions granted to
the same person may not exceed the 1.5 amount of the
statistical average monthly salary in the economy of the
country, which is paid in the quarter before last that precedes
the month when state pension is paid as published by the
Department of Statistics at the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania" of Paragraph 3 of Article 3 (wording of 2 July 2002)
of the Law on State Pensions to the extent that its formula "of
each state pension established in Items 3-6 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 1 of this law" includes state pensions of the officials
and servicemen established in Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article
1 of this law is not in conflict with Articles 23 and 52 of the
Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law either.
VII
On the compliance of Item 84 (wording of 5 December 1995)
of the Regulations of Granting and Payment of State Social
Insurance Pensions as approved by Government Resolution No.
1156 of 18 November 1994 with Item 2 of Article 94 of the
Constitution and Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 July 1994) of
Article 45 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions.
1. Conforming to the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions adopted by the Seimas on 18 July 1994, the Government
approved the Regulations of Granting and Payment of State
Social Insurance Pensions by Item 1 of Resolution No. 1156 "On
the Approval of the Regulations of Granting and Payment of
State Social Insurance Pensions" of 18 November 1994.
2. On 5 December 1995, by Sub-item 1.10 of Resolution No.
1526 "On the Partial Amendment of the Regulations of Granting
and Payment of State Social Insurance Pensions" (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1995, No. 101-2257), the Government
supplemented the Regulations by the chapter "Procedure of
recalculation of pensions granted before the entry into force
of the Law on Pensions", in Item 84 whereof established:
"Persons who had been granted service time pensions prior to 1
January 1995 and who, after granting of this pension, but not
later than until 1 January 1995 had reached the age entitling
to an old age pension (men--60 years, women--55 years) or who
were invalids, may submit the data on the salary for the time
periods indicated in Item 82 of these Regulations. In this case
the corresponding 12-month or 60-month periods shall be
calculated until the day of reaching of the age entitling to an
old age pension or the day of the establishment of disability."
3. On 1 May 2000, by Sub-item 1.24 of the Resolution No.
487 "On the Partial Amendment of Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 1156 'On the Approval of the
Regulation of Granting and Payment of State Social Insurance
Pensions' of 18 November 1994" (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 2000, No. 37-1037), the Government set forth Item 84 of
the Regulations as follows: "Persons who had been granted
service time pensions prior to 1 January 1995 and who, after
granting of this pension, but not later than until 1 January
1995 had reached the age entitling to an old age pension
(men--60 years, women--55 years) or who were invalids, may
submit the data on the salary for the time periods indicated in
Item 82 of these Regulations. In this case the corresponding
60-month periods shall be calculated until the day of reaching
of the age entitling to an old age pension or the day of the
establishment of disability, while 24-month periods--after the
day of reaching of the age entitling to an old age pension or
the day of the establishment of disability, but not longer than
until 1 January 1995."
4. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the
petitioner, by its ruling of 5 December 2002 requests to
investigate whether Item 84 of the Regulations of Granting and
Payment of State Social Insurance Pensions as approved by
Government Resolution No. 1156 of 18 November 1994 was not in
conflict with Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution and
Paragraph 4 of Article 45 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions.
The petitioner notes that, under Item 84 of the
Regulations, persons, who had been granted the service time
pensions prior to 1 January 1995, and who, after granting of
this pension, but not later than until 1 January 1995, had
reached the age entitling to an old age pension or who were
invalids, may submit the data concerning their salary for the
time periods specified in Item 82 of the Regulations, which is
necessary for recalculation of the granted pension, although
according to Paragraph 4 of Article 45 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions a service time pension shall be
recalculated into a state social insurance old age or
disability pension only if there is the following condition:
its recipient has reached the age entitling to an old age
pension established by the law. In the opinion of the
petitioner, under Item 84 of the Regulations, only those
persons, who had reached the age entitling to an old age
pension prior to 1 January 1995, may demand the recalculation
of a service time pension which had been granted prior to the
entry into force of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions,
although Paragraph 4 of Article 45 of the said law does not
establish such a condition. According to the petitioner, Item
84 of the Regulations and Paragraph 4 of Article 45 of the Law
on State Social Insurance Pensions establish different legal
regulation. In the opinion of the petitioner, the legal
regulation established in the substatutory act is in conflict
with the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions, as well as
Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution.
5. It is clear from the arguments set forth in the
petition of the petitioner that he has doubts as to whether not
whole Item 84 (wording of 5 December 1995) of the Regulations,
but only the provision "persons who had been granted service
time pensions prior to 1 January 1995 and who, after granting
of this pension, but not later than until 1 January 1995 had
reached the age entitling to an old age pension <...> may
submit the data on the salary for the time periods indicated in
Item 82 of these Regulations" entrenched therein, is not in
conflict with Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution and
Paragraph 4 of Article 45 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions. This provision of Item 84 (wording of 5 December
1995) of the Regulations remained unchanged after Item 84
(wording of 5 December 1995) of the Regulations was amended by
Sub-item 1.24 of Government Resolution No. 487 "On the Partial
Amendment of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
No. 1156 'On the Approval of the Regulation of Granting and
Payment of State Social Insurance Pensions' of 18 November
1994" of 1 May 2000.
According to the petition of the Supreme Administrative
Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, the Constitutional Court
will investigate whether the provision "persons who had been
granted service time pensions prior to 1 January 1995 and who,
after granting of this pension, but not later than until 1
January 1995 had reached the age entitling to an old age
pension <...> may submit the data on the salary for the time
periods indicated in Item 82 of these Regulations" of Item 84
(wordings of 5 December 1995 and 1 May 2000) of the Regulations
as approved by Item 1 of Government Resolution No. 1156 "On the
Approval of the Regulations of Granting and Payment of State
Social Insurance Pensions" of 18 November 1994 is not in
conflict with Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution and
Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 45 of the Law
on State Social Insurance Pensions.
6. It has been mentioned that, under Item 2 of Article 94
of the Constitution, the Government shall execute laws and
resolutions of the Seimas concerning the implementation of
laws, as well as the decrees of the President of the Republic.
It has been mentioned that the norm, which is established in
Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution, means that the
Government, while adopting legal acts, must observe the
Constitution and valid laws. Legal acts of the Government may
not contain legal norms which establish different legal
regulation from that established in the laws, as well as norms
competing with norms of the laws.
7. Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 45
titled "Recalculation of pensions granted prior to the entry
into force of this Law" of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions used to establish: "A service time pension shall be
recalculated into a state social insurance old age pension or
disability pension only if its recipient has reached the age
entitling to an old age pension which is established by this
law. Otherwise, the pensioner is paid the granted pension
indexing it according to the procedure established in Article
50 of this Law."
Article 45 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions
was further amended and supplemented, however, the provisions
of Paragraph 4 (wordings of 20 April 1995, 28 September 1995,
22 April 1997, 22 October 1998, 7 July 1999, 16 December 1999
and 2 May 2000) were not amended or supplemented.
On 10 December 2002, by Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Amendment and Supplement of
Articles 2, 10, 28, 29, 34, 38, 40, 45, 49, 54, and 56 and the
Supplement of Articles 551, 552, 553, 554, and 555 to the Law
on State Social Insurance Pensions (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 2002, 124-5620), the Seimas amended Paragraph 4
(wording of 2 May 2000) of Article 45 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions and set it forth as follows: "A
service time pension shall be recalculated into a state social
insurance old age or disability pension only in the event if
its recipient had reached the age entitling to an old age
pension, which is established by this law, or had been
recognised disabled prior to the entry into force of this law.
Otherwise, the pensioner shall be paid the granted pension
indexing it according to the procedure established in Article
50 of this Law. The procedure for recalculation of pensions of
the officials and servicemen of the systems of interior, the
Special Investigation Service, national defence, state security
and prosecutor's office shall be established by the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen
of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State
Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor's Office, the
Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State
Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter."
Subsequent to the petition of the petitioner, the
Constitutional Court will investigate whether the disputed
provision of Item 84 (wordings of 5 December 1995 and 1 May
2000) of the Regulations was not in conflict with Paragraph 4
(wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 45 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions.
8. While revealing the content of the legal regulation
established in the provision "persons who had been granted
service time pensions prior to 1 January 1995 and who, after
granting of this pension, but not later than until 1 January
1995 had reached the age entitling to an old age pension <...>
may submit the data on the salary for the time periods
indicated in Item 82 of these Regulations" of Item 84 (wordings
of 5 December 1995 and 1 May 2000) of the Regulations, it has
to be noted that the said item of the Regulations is present in
the chapter "The procedure of recalculation of pensions granted
prior to the entry into force of the Law on Pensions" (under
Item 1 of the Regulations, the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions adopted by the Seimas on 18 July 1994 is referred to
as the Law on Pensions).
According to Item 84 (wordings of 5 December 1995 and 1
May 2000) of the Regulations, the data on the salary may be
submitted for the recalculation of a service time pension into
a state social insurance old age pension only if there are the
following conditions:
1) a person has to be granted a service time pension prior
to 1 January 1995;
2) after granting of this pension, but not later than
until 1 January 1995, such persons should have reached the age
entitling to an old age pension (men--60 years, women--55
years).
It clear from the legal regulation entrenched in Item 84
(wordings of 5 December 1995 and 1 May 2000) of the Regulations
that the data on the salary for recalculations of a state
social insurance old age pension of persons, who do not meet
these conditions, may not be submitted.
9. It has been mentioned that Paragraph 4 (wording of 18
July 1994) of Article 45 titled "Recalculation of pensions
granted prior to the entry into force of this Law" of the Law
on State Social Insurance Pensions used to establish that a
service time pension is recalculated into a state social
insurance old age pension only if its recipient has reached the
age entitling to an old age pension which is established by
this law.
While assessing the content of the provision of Paragraph
4 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 45 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions, it has to be noted that it used to
be stated in the article of the law which was titled
"Recalculation of pensions granted prior to the entry into
force of the law". This article established that pensions shall
be recalculated to persons who had been granted state social
insurance old age or disability pensions prior to the entry
into force of this law, that state social insurance widows and
orphans pensions, under this law, may be granted only for
persons who had deceased prior to the entry into force of this
law, as well as provided for the recalculation of the service
time pension into the state social insurance old age or
disability pension. Thus, this article regulated the
recalculation of various pensions which had been granted prior
to the entry into force of this law.
According to the legal regulation established in Paragraph
4 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 45 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions, recalculation of the service time
pension into the state social insurance pension used to be
related with the following conditions:
1) a service time pension must be granted prior to the
entry into force of the law, i.e. prior to 1 January 1995,
since, according to Article 44 of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions, this law became valid on 1 January 1995;
2) a person, who has been granted a service time pension,
has reached the age entitling to an old age pension established
in Article 18 of this law.
While assessing the condition for recalculation of the
service time pension into the state social insurance pension
established in Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article
45 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions in the aspect
pointed out by the petitioner, it has to be noted that the
first condition determines the term until which the service
time pension must be granted (it must be granted prior to the
entry into force of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions,
i.e. until 1 January 1995), while the second condition
establishes that a recipient of a service time pension, to whom
this pension is being recalculated into a state social
insurance old age pension, is a person who "has reached the age
entitling to an old age pension established in Article 18 of
this law". This formula means that a service time pension is
recalculated into a state social insurance pension to a
recipient of a service time pension precisely of this age.
Thus, according to such legal regulation, the person who
reaches the age entitling to an old age pension both prior to
and after the entry into force of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions, may be a recipient of the service time
pension. While assessing the content of the second condition of
recalculation of the service time pension into the state social
insurance old age pension, one may not conclude that, according
to it, a recipient of the service time pension must reach the
age entitling to an old age pension established in Article 18
of the Law on State Social Insurance Pension prior to the entry
into force of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions, i.e.
prior to 1 January 1995.
10. Having compared the provision "persons who had been
granted service time pensions prior to 1 January 1995 and who,
after granting of this pension, but not later than until 1
January 1995 had reached the age entitling to an old age
pension <...> may submit the data on the salary for the time
periods indicated in Item 82 of these Regulations" of Item 84
(wordings of 5 December 1995 and 1 May 2000) of the Regulations
with the provision "a service time pension shall be
recalculated into a state social insurance old age <...>
pension only if its recipient has reached the age entitling to
an old age pension which is established by this law" of
Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 45 of the Law
on State Social Insurance Pensions, it is clear that the
disputed provision of Item 84 (wordings of 5 December 1995 and
1 May 2000) of the Regulations used to establish a
supplementary condition not established by the law: persons
must reach the age entitling to an old age pension prior to the
granting of this pension, but not later than 1 January 1995.
Upon the establishment of such a condition, the circle of
persons to whom the service time pension is recalculated into
the state social insurance old age pension was narrowed in the
Regulations.
Thus, Item 84 (wordings of 5 December 1995 and 1 May 2000)
of the Regulations of Granting and Payment of State Social
Insurance Pensions as approved by Item 1 of the Government
Resolution "On the Approval of the Regulations of Granting and
Payment of State Social Insurance Pensions" of 18 November 1994
established the legal regulation, which competed with the legal
regulation established in Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 July 1994)
of Article 45 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions.
The part "but not later than until 1 January 1995" of the
provision "persons who had been granted service time pensions
prior to 1 January 1995 and who, after granting of this
pension, but not later than until 1 January 1995 had reached
the age entitling to an old age pension <...> may submit the
data on the salary for the time periods indicated in Item 82 of
these Regulations" of Item 84 (wordings of 5 December 1995 and
1 May 2000) of the Regulations was in conflict with Paragraph 4
(wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 45 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions.
11. It has been mentioned that according to Item 2 of
Article 94 of the Constitution, legal acts of the Government
may not contain legal norms establishing a different legal
regulation from that established by laws, as well as those
competing with of norms of the laws.
Having held in this Constitutional Court Ruling that the
part "but not later than until 1 January 1995" of the provision
"persons who had been granted service time pensions prior to 1
January 1995 and who, after granting of this pension, but not
later than until 1 January 1995 had reached the age entitling
to an old age pension <...> may submit the data on the salary
for the time periods indicated in Item 82 of these Regulations"
of Item 84 (wordings of 5 December 1995 and 1 May 2000) of the
Regulations was in conflict with Paragraph 4 (wording of 18
July 1994) of Article 45 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions, one is also to hold that the part "but not later than
until 1 January 1995" of the provision "persons who had been
granted service time pensions prior to 1 January 1995 and who,
after granting of this pension, but not later than until 1
January 1995 had reached the age entitling to an old age
pension <...> may submit the data on the salary for the time
periods indicated in Item 82 of these Regulations" of Item 84
(wordings of 5 December 1995 and 1 May 2000) of the Regulations
was also in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 94 of the
Constitution.
12. It has been mentioned that on 10 December 2002, by
Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
the Amendment and Supplement of Articles 2, 10, 28, 29, 34, 38,
40, 45, 49, 54, and 56 and the Supplement of Articles 551, 552,
553, 554, and 555 to the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions, the Seimas amended Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 July
1994) of Article 45 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions. Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article
45 of this law inter alia establishes that a service time
pension is recalculated into a state social insurance old age
or disability pension only if its recipient had reached the age
entitling to an old age pension, which is established by this
law, or who had been recognised disabled prior to the entry
into force of this law.
Having compared the legal regulation established in
Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 45 of the
Law on State Social Insurance Pensions with the legal
regulation established in the previously effective Paragraph 4
(wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 45 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions, it is clear that the formula "its
recipient had reached the age entitling to an old age pension,
which is established by this law, <...> prior to the entry into
force of this law" employed in Paragraph 4 (wording of 10
December 2002) of Article 45 of this law changed the formula
"its recipient has reached the age entitling to an old age
pension" which used to be entrenched in Paragraph 4 (wording of
18 July 1994) of Article 45 of the said law. Thus, by such
amendment of Paragraph 4 of Article 45 of the law, the
legislator consolidated a new element of the legal regulation,
i.e. he has established that a recipient of the service time
pension must have reached the age entitling to an old age
pension, which is established by the law, prior to the entry
into force of the Law on State Social Insurance Pension. Such
an element did not exist in Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 July
1994) of Article 45 of the Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions.
Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 45 of
the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions establishes a
supplementary condition for recalculation of the service time
pension into the state social insurance old age pension which
was not established in Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 July 1994) of
Article 45 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions.
According to Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 July 1994) of
Article 45 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions, a
service time pension could be recalculated to persons who had
reached the age entitling to an old age pension which is
established by the law, while under Paragraph 4 (wording of 10
December 2002) of Article 45 of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions, a service time pension is recalculated only
if a recipient of a service time pension had reached the age
entitling to an old age pension, which is established by the
law, prior to 1 January 1995. Thus, due to such amendment of
the legal regulation the status of a part of service time
pension recipients (i.e. persons who have reached the age
entitling to an old age pension established by the law after 1
January 1995) was deteriorated. According to the previous legal
regulation, a service time pension had to be also recalculated
if such person reached the age entitling to an old age pension
after 1 January 1995.
It needs to be noted, alongside, that the legal regulation
established in Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of
Article 45 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions is
retrospective as it establishes that a service time pension
shall be recalculated if its recipients had reached the age
entitling to an old age pension established by the law prior to
1 January 1995. It violates the principle lex retro non agit
which arises from the Constitution. Such legal regulation is in
conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law and Article 52 of the Constitution.
It has been mentioned that, under Article 29 of the
Constitution, the principle of equality of all persons must be
followed both in passing of laws and in their application. The
said constitutional principle obliges to legally assess the
homogeneous facts in the same manner and prohibits to arbitrary
assess the facts, which are the same in essence, in a different
manner. It has been noted in this Constitutional Court Ruling
that the constitutional principle of equality of all persons
would be violated if a certain group of persons, which a legal
norm is addressed to, would be treated in a different manner if
compared to other addressees of the same norm, though there
exist no differences of such nature and scope between those two
groups, which would objectively justify this different
treatment.
The legal regulation established in Paragraph 4 (wording
of 10 December 2002) of Article 45 of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions created the legal situation when a different
legal regulation is established for a part of service time
pension recipients if compared to other recipients of this
pension, though there exist no differences of such nature and
scope between those groups of persons, which would objectively
justify this different treatment. Such legal regulation
violates the principle of equality of persons consolidated in
Article 29 of the Constitution.
13. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that the part "prior to the entry into force of this
law" of the provision "a service time pension shall be
recalculated into a state social insurance old age <...>
pension only if its recipient had reached the age entitling to
an old age pension established by this law <...> prior to the
entry into force of this law" of Paragraph 4 (wording of 10
December 2002) of Article 45 of the Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions is in conflict with Articles 29 and 52 of
the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law.
14. Having held that the part "prior to the entry into
force of this law" of the provision "a service time pension
shall be recalculated into a state social insurance old age
<...> pension only if its recipient had reached the age
entitling to an old age pension established by this law <...>
prior to the entry into force of this law" of Paragraph 4
(wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 45 of the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions is in conflict with Articles 29 and
52 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not
investigate whether the disputed provision of Item 84 (wordings
of 5 December 1995 and 1 May 2000) is not in conflict with
Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 45 of the
Law on State Social Insurance Pensions.
Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania has passed the following
ruling:
1. To recognise that Paragraph 1 of Article 1 (wording of
18 July 1994) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions to the extent which is related to the
necessity to have the minimum state social pension insurance
period which entitles to an old age pension according to the
law is not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
2. To recognise that the provision "state social insurance
pensions shall be granted to persons <...> if they meet the
requirements of the state social pension insurance period for
the granting of respective type of the pension, established by
this law" of Article 3 (wording of 18 July 1994) of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions to
the extent which is related to the necessity to have the
minimum state social pension insurance period which entitles to
an old age pension according to the law is not in conflict with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
3. To recognise that Paragraph 2 (wording of 18 July 1994)
of Article 6 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions to the extent which is related to the
necessity to have the minimum state social pension insurance
period which entitles to an old age pension according to the
law is not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
4. To recognise that Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17
(wording of 7 July 1999) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions is not in conflict with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
5. To recognise that Paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions is
not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
6. To recognise that Paragraph 1 of Article 32 (wording of
21 December 2000) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions to the extent which established that
persons who had reached the age entitling to an old age pension
and older disabled who, after granting of a state social
insurance disability pension, received income from which the
obligatory state social pension insurance contributions were
calculated and paid, or who received state social insurance
sickness benefits (including those paid by the employer for the
days of sickness), motherhood, motherhood (fatherhood) or
unemployment benefits, if they had the obligatory state social
pension insurance period entitling to a disability pension,
should be paid the basic part of the granted state social
insurance disability pension, and which did not establish that
the whole granted and previously paid state social insurance
disability pension should be paid, was in conflict with Article
52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
7. To recognise that Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 32
(wording of 8 May 2001) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions to the extent which established
that the disabled who had reached the age entitling to an old
age pension (Articles 18 and 22) and those who were older, who,
after granting of a state social insurance disability pension,
received income from which the obligatory state social pension
insurance contributions were calculated and paid, or who
received state social insurance sickness benefits (including
those paid by the employer for the days of sickness),
motherhood, motherhood (fatherhood) or unemployment benefits,
should be paid not the whole granted and previously paid state
social insurance disability pension, was in conflict with
Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
8. To recognise that the part "prior to the entry into
force of this law" of the provision "a service time pension
shall be recalculated into a state social insurance old age
<...> pension only if its recipient had reached the age
entitling to an old age pension established by this law <...>
prior to the entry into force of this law" of Paragraph 4
(wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 45 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions is in conflict
with Articles 29 and 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law.
9. To recognise that Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 July 1995)
of Article 48 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social
Insurance Pensions is not in conflict with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania.
10. To recognise that Item 4 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law "On the Amendment and Supplement of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions" is not in
conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
11. To recognise that Paragraph 3 (wording of 4 July 1995)
of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Pensions
to the extent which limited the amount of the granted and paid
state pension in conjunction with a state social insurance
pension was in conflict with Articles 23 and 52 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
12. To recognise that the provision "the amount of state
pensions established in Items 3-5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1
of this law <...> in conjunction with a state social insurance
pension to one person may not exceed the 1.5 amount of the
statistical average monthly salary in the economy of the
country, which is paid in the quarter before last that precedes
the month when state pension is paid as published by the
Department of Statistics at the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania" of Paragraph 3 of Article 3 (wording of 20 February
2001) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Pensions to the
extent that its formula "state pensions established in Items
3-5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this law" includes state
pensions of the officials and servicemen established in Item 4
of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this law was not in conflict
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
13. To recognise that the provision "the total sum to one
person of the amount of this pension, and state pensions and
state social insurance pensions granted to the same person may
not exceed the 1.5 amount of the statistical average monthly
salary in the economy of the country, which is paid in the
quarter before last that precedes the month when state pension
is paid as published by the Department of Statistics at the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of Paragraph 3 of
Article 3 (wording of 2 July 2002) of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on State Pensions to the extent that its formula "of each
state pension established in Items 3-6 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 1 of this law" includes state pensions of the officials
and servicemen established in Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article
1 of this law is not in conflict with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
14. To recognise that the part "but not later than until 1
January 1995" of the provision "persons who had been granted
service time pensions prior to 1 January 1995 and who, after
granting of this pension, but not later than until 1 January
1995 had reached the age entitling to an old age pension <...>
may submit the data on the salary for the time periods
indicated in Item 82 of these Regulations" of Item 84 (wordings
of 5 December 1995 and 1 May 2000) of the Regulations of
Granting and Payment of State Social Insurance Pensions as
approved by Item 1 of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution "On the Approval of the Regulations of
Granting and Payment of State Social Insurance Pensions" of 18
November 1994 was in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 94 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 4
(wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 45 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions.
This Constitutional Court ruling is final and not subject
to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated in the name of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
Egidijus Jarašiūnas
Egidijus Kūris
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Augustinas Normantas
Jonas Prapiestis
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas