Lietuviškai
Case No. 13/03
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF ITEMS 1 AND 3.3 OF THE PROCEDURE OF
THE PAYMENT OF ONETIME ALLOWANCES FOR THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE
1940-1990 ARMED RESISTANCE WHO LOST THEIR LIVES OR DIED DURING
INTERROGATION OR IMPRISONMENT, VOLUNTEER SOLDIERS, AND
PARTICIPANTS OF UNARMED RESISTANCE, PARTICIPANTS OF FREEDOM
FIGHTS, TO THEIR FAMILIES AS APPROVED BY GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA RESOLUTION NO. 128 "ON THE STATE SUPPORT
TO THE FAMILIES OF THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE RESISTANCE TO THE
1940-1990 OCCUPATIONS WHO LOST THEIR LIVES" OF 4 FEBRUARY 1999
WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND
PARAGRAPH 2 (WORDING OF 6 OCTOBER 1998) OF ARTICLE 2 AND
ARTICLE 4 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON THE STATE SUPPORT
TO THE FAMILIES OF THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE RESISTANCE TO THE
1940-1990 OCCUPATIONS WHO LOST THEIR LIVES
30 January 2004
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 Government of the Republic of
Lithuania, the party concerned, who were Irena Šambaraitė, the
chief specialist of the Law Department of the Ministry of
Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania, and
Danutė Akulavičienė, Deputy Head of the Victims and Social Risk
Groups Division of the said ministry,
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 27
January 2004 in its public hearing heard Case No. 13/03 which
originated in a petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioner, requesting to determine as to whether
the provisions of Items 1 and 3.3 of the Procedure of the
Payment of Onetime Allowances for the Participants of the
1940-1990 Armed Resistance Who Lost Their Lives or Died During
Interrogation or Imprisonment, Volunteer Soldiers, and
Participants of Unarmed Resistance, Participants of Freedom
Fights, to Their Families as approved by Government of the
Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 128 "On the State Support
to the Families of the Participants of the Resistance to the
1940-1990 Occupations Who Lost Their Lives" of 4 February 1999
were not in conflict with the principles of a just civil
society and state under the rule of law which are entrenched in
the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,
as well as with the provisions of Article 29 and Item 7 of
Article 94 of the Constitution, and Paragraph 2 of Article 2
and Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the State
Support to the Families of the Participants of the Resistance
to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who Lost Their Lives.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. 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 Items 1 and 3.3
of the Procedure of the Payment of Onetime Allowances for the
Participants of the 1940-1990 Armed Resistance Who Lost Their
Lives or Died During Interrogation or Imprisonment, Volunteer
Soldiers, and Participants of Unarmed Resistance, Participants
of Freedom Fights, to Their Families (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 15-397; hereinafter also referred
to as the Procedure) as approved by Government Resolution No.
128 "On the State Support to the Families of the Participants
of the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who Lost Their
Lives" of 4 February 1999 were not in conflict with the
principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of
law which are entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution,
as well as with the provisions of Article 29 and Item 7 of
Article 94 of the Constitution, and Paragraph 2 (wording of 6
October 1998) of Article 2 and Article 4 of the Law on the to
the State Support to the Families of the Participants of the
Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who Lost Their Lives
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1998, No. 92-2543;
hereinafter also referred to as the Law).
II
The petition of the petitioner is based on the following
arguments.
1. According to Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law,
brothers and sisters of those who lost their lives shall be
paid a onetime allowance of the corresponding amount if at the
time of death of the participant of the resistance to the
occupations they were under the age of 18 and did not have both
parents.
Article 4 of the Law provides that the Government shall
prepare the procedure of the payment of onetime allowances to
the families of the participants of the resistance to the
1940-1990 occupations who lost their lives.
2. Under Item 1 of the Procedure, a onetime allowance of
the corresponding amount shall be paid to brothers and sisters
of the participants of the 1940-1990 armed resistance who lost
their lives or died during interrogation or imprisonment,
volunteer soldiers, and participants of unarmed resistance,
participants of freedom fights, if at the time of death of the
participant of the resistance to the occupations they were
under the age of 18 and did not have both parents--were
orphans.
Under Item 3.3 of the Procedure, in order to receive a
onetime allowance, brothers and sisters of a participant of the
resistance to the 1940-1990 occupations who had lost his life,
if at the time of death of the participant of the resistance to
the occupations they were under the age of 18 and did not have
both parents--were orphans, must submit copies of death
certificates of the parents together with the application.
3. In the opinion of the petitioner, the notion "at that
time did not have both parents" which is entrenched in the Law
is concretised in the formula "at that time did not have both
parents--were orphans" employed in Items 1 and 3.3 of the
Procedure. The petitioner maintains that the Law does not
indicate that orphans are only the persons who did not have
both parents at that time. The petitioner has doubts as to
whether Items 1 and 3.3 of the Procedure do not narrow the
circle of subjects who, according to the Law, have the right to
receive the state support.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing written explanations were received
from the representatives of the party concerned, the
Government, who were I. Šambaraitė and D. Akulavičienė.
The representatives of the party concerned maintain that
the notion "did not have both parents" consolidated in
Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law is to be construed
referring to corresponding laws which were in force at that
time. For instance, Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Child Guardianship used to contain the notion
"a child deprived of parental care". The child deprived of
parental care meant: the orphaned child, whose both parents or
the only parent that he had were deceased; the child whose
parents were unknown, but were searched; the child who was
taken from his parents according to the procedure established
by the law; the child whose both parents or the single parent
were declared dead or recognised as missing or legally
incapable according to the procedure prescribed by law; the
child whose both parents were unable to take care of him by
reason of illness, arrest, execution of the punishment or
because of other important reasons; the child whose parents
neglected him, did not take proper care of him, were not
bringing him up properly, had a negative influence on the
child, or when his physical and mental health was endangered.
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
the Fundamentals of Protection of the Rights of the Child
provides that an orphan is a child whose parents are deceased.
In the opinion of the representatives of the party concerned,
the notion "did not have both parents" which is consolidated by
the legislator in the Law on the State Support to the Families
of the Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990
Occupations Who Lost Their Lives means that parents were
deceased. Otherwise, the Law would have employed the notion
"the child deprived of parental care".
I. Šambaraitė and D. Akulavičienė maintain that the
disputed provisions of Items 1 and 3.3 of the Procedure do not
narrow the notion "did not have both parents" of the Law and
are not in conflict with the Constitution and Paragraph 2 of
Article 2 and Article 4 of the Law.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing written explanations were received
from D. Kuodytė, Director General of the Research Centre of
Genocide and Resistance of Lithuanian Population, and Prof. I.
Nekrošius, Head of the Labour Law Department of the Faculty of
Law of Vilnius University.
V
At the Constitutional Court hearing, the representatives
of the Government, the party concerned, I. Šambaraitė and D.
Akulavičienė virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in
their written explanations.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. On 4 February 1999, the Government adopted Resolution
No. 128 "On the State Support to the Families of the
Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who
Lost Their Lives", by Item 1 whereof approved the Procedure of
the Payment of Onetime Allowances for the Participants of the
1940-1990 Armed Resistance Who Lost Their Lives or Died During
Interrogation or Imprisonment, Volunteer Soldiers, and
Participants of Unarmed Resistance, Participants of Freedom
Fights, to Their Families.
2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, requests to investigate whether the provisions of
Items 1 and 3.3 of the Procedure are not in conflict with the
principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of
law which are entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania, as well as with the provisions of
Article 29 and Item 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution, and
Paragraph 2 (wording of 6 October 1998) of Article 2 and
Article 4 of the Law on the State Support to the Families of
the Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations
Who Lost Their Lives.
3. Item 1 of the Procedure provides:
"As it is provided by Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 2 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the State Support to the
Families of the Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990
Occupations Who Lost Their Lives, parents (adoptive parents),
spouses who had not concluded another marriage before the death
of the volunteer soldier or the participant of freedom fights,
children (adopted children), as well as brothers and sisters if
at the time of death of the participant of the resistance to
the occupations they were under the age of 18 and did not have
both parents--were orphans (hereinafter also referred to as
members of the family), for the participants of the 1940-1990
armed resistance who lost their lives or died during
interrogation or imprisonment, volunteer soldiers, and
participants of unarmed resistance, participants of freedom
fights, shall be paid in equal parts a onetime allowance of the
following amount:
1.1. members of the family of the participants of armed
resistance-volunteer soldiers-who lost their lives on the
battlefield or at the moment of arrest, those who were killed
or died during the interrogation before coming into effect of a
court judgement, or who were sentenced to death and to whom the
sentence was executed, shall be paid LTL 20 000;
1.2. members of the family of the participants of armed
resistance-volunteer soldiers-who died during imprisonment
after coming into force of a court judgement, as well as
members of the family of the participants of unarmed
resistance: participants of freedom fights who lost their lives
at the moment of arrest, those who were killed or died during
the interrogation before coming into effect of a court
judgement, or who were sentenced to death and to whom the
sentence was executed, shall be paid LTL 15 000;
1.3. members of the family of the participants of unarmed
resistance-participants of freedom fights-who were killed or
died during the imprisonment after the coming into effect of a
court judgement, shall be paid LTL 12 000."
Item 3 of the Procedure provides:
"In order to receive a onetime allowance, each member of
the family must submit an application indicating his personal
code and the place of permanent residence to a city (district)
municipality on the territory whereof the participant of the
resistance to the 1940-1990 occupations used to live before his
death or arrest. The following documents have to be submitted
together with the application: <...>
3.3. documents which prove the kinship relation with the
person who lost his life (died): copies of marriage, birth
certificates, copies of other documents proving the kinship
relation which have been certified according to the procedure
established by the law, and if such documents do not exist--a
court decision concerning the establishment of the legal fact.
The brothers and sisters of the participant of the
resistance to the 1940-1990 occupations who lost his life
(died), if at the time of death of the participant of the
resistance to the occupations they were under the age of 18 and
at that time did not have both parents--were orphans, shall
submit copies of death certificates of their parents which have
been certified according to the procedure established by the
laws."
4. It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner set
forth in the petition that he has doubts as to the compliance
of not whole Item 1 and not whole Item 3.3 of the Procedure
with the Constitution and Paragraph 2 (wording 6 October 1998)
of Article 2 and Article 4 of the Law, but as to the compliance
of the provision "if they <...> at that time did not have both
parents--were orphans" of Item 1 and the provision "if they
<...> at that time did not have both parents--were orphans" of
Section 2 of Item 3.3 of the Procedure are not in conflict with
the Constitution and Paragraph 2 (wording 6 October 1998) of
Article 2 and Article 4 of the Law.
II
1. On 6 October 1998, the Seimas adopted the Law on the
State Support to the Families of the Participants of the
Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who Lost Their Lives.
2. Paragraph 2 (wording of 6 October 1998) of Article 2 of
the Law used to provide:
"Parents (adoptive parents), spouses who had not concluded
another marriage before the death of the volunteer soldier or
the participant of freedom fights, children (adopted children),
as well as brothers and sisters if at the time of death of the
participant of the resistance to the occupations they were
under the age of 18 and did not have both parents--were orphans
(hereinafter also referred to as members of the family), shall
be paid, in equal parts, a onetime allowance of the following
amount:
1.1. members of the family of the participants of armed
resistance-volunteer soldiers-who lost their lives on the
battlefield or at the moment of arrest, those who were killed
or died during the interrogation before coming into effect of a
court judgement, or who were sentenced to death and to whom the
sentence was executed, shall be paid LTL 20 000;
1.2. members of the family of the participants of armed
resistance-volunteer soldiers-who died during imprisonment
after coming into force of a court judgement, as well as
members of the family of the participants of unarmed
resistance: participants of freedom fights, who lost their
lives at the moment of arrest, those who were killed or died
during the interrogation before coming into effect of a court
judgement, or who were sentenced to death and to whom the
sentence was executed, shall be paid LTL 15 000;
1.3. members of the family of the participants of unarmed
resistance-participants of freedom fights-who were killed or
died during the imprisonment after the coming into effect of a
court judgement, shall be paid LTL 12 000."
Article 4 of the Law provides:
"The Government shall prepare the procedure of the payment
and granting of onetime allowances for the participants of
resistance to the 1940-1990 occupations who lost their lives to
their families."
3. It is clear from the motives set forth in the petition
of the petitioner that he has doubts as to whether the
provision "if they <...> at that time did not have both
parents--were orphans" of Item 1 and the provision "if they
<...> at that time did not have both parents--were orphans" of
Section 2 of Item 3.3 of the Procedure were not in conflict
with not all provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law,
but only with the provision "if they <...> at that time did not
have both parents" of Paragraph 2 (wording of 6 October 1998)
of the same article.
4. Paragraph 2 (wording of 6 October 1998) of Article 2 of
the Law inter alia establishes a condition that brothers and
sisters of the participants of the armed resistance who lost
their lives, as well as of the participants of the unarmed
resistance who lost their lives, are paid a onetime allowance
of the specified amount if they, at the time of death of the
participant of the resistance to the occupations, were under
the age of 18 and at that time did not have both parents.
While revealing the content of the formula "did not have
both parents" employed in Paragraph 2 (wording of 6 October
1998) of Article 2 of the Law, linguistic and systematic
methods, as well as the method of the legislator's intentions
should be applied.
The formula "did not have both parents" is to be construed
as meaning that both parents were deceased. This formula also
includes such a legal situation when the only parent was
deceased.
Travaux préparatoires (Law preparation material) confirm
precisely this content of the formula employed in Paragraph 2
(wording of 6 October 1998) which indicate the real intention
of the legislator.
Such content of this formula is also confirmed by the fact
that, when the different interpretation of the content of the
formula "did not have both parents" appeared in practice, on 23
December 2003, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania Law
on the Amendment of Article 2 of the Law on the State Support
to the Families of the Participants of the Resistance to the
1940-1990 Occupations Who Lost Their Lives, according to
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 whereof the words "at that time" were
deleted and the words ("both parents or the only parent were
deceased") were entered instead of the words "parents" in
Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
the State Support to the Families of the Participants of the
Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who Lost Their Lives.
Having corrected the provision of Paragraph 2 (wording of 6
October 1998) of Article 2 of the Law in this way, the
legislator once again affirmed that the former formula "did not
have both parents" of Paragraph 2 (wording of 6 October 1998)
of Article 2 of the Law meant that both parents were deceased.
5. It needs to be noted in the context of the case at
issue that, according to Paragraph 2 of Article 146 of the
Constitution, the state shall provide for citizens who lost
their health while defending the state, and for the families of
citizens who lost their lives or died while defending the
state.
Thus, Paragraph 2 of Article 146 of the Constitution inter
alia provides for the duty of the legislator to establish the
persons whom the state provides for as members of the family of
citizens who lost their lives or died while defending the
state, to establish conditions under which the state provides
for the said persons, as well as to establish the amount,
procedure of this provision and to regulate other essential
issues of the provision for the said persons.
It also needs to be noted that, according to Article 52 of
the Constitution, 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.
The formula "the State shall guarantee" employed in
Article 52 of the Constitution means that the (old age and
disability) pensions and types of social assistance (in the
event of unemployment, sickness, widowhood, loss of
breadwinner) enumerated in the same article have to be provided
for by the law, i.e. the legislator must establish them by the
law; other pensions and types of social assistance (not
indicated in Article 52 of the Constitution) may be provided
for by the law as well (Constitutional Court rulings of 25
November 2002, 4 July 2003, 3 December 2003). The provision of
Article 52 of the Constitution that the law may establish other
types of social assistance also means that the legislator has
the powers to establish by the law the persons who are rendered
social assistance, conditions, amounts and procedure of the
rendering of this assistance, as well as to regulate other
essential relations of the rendering of social assistance.
Within the context of the case under consideration, it
needs to be noted that the Seimas, having passed the Law on the
State Support to the Families of the Participants of the
Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who Lost Their Lives
and having established therein that brothers and sisters of the
participants of the armed resistance who lost their lives, as
well as of the participants of the unarmed resistance who lost
their lives, are paid a onetime allowance of the specified
amount if they, at the time of death of the participant of the
resistance to the occupations, were under the age of 18 and at
that time did not have both parents, implemented the powers
established to it by the Constitution.
III
On the compliance of the provision "if they <...> at that
time did not have both parents--were orphans" of Item 1 and the
provision "if they <...> at that time did not have both
parents--were orphans" of Section 2 of Item 3.3 of the
Procedure of the Payment of Onetime Allowances for the
Participants of the 1940-1990 Armed Resistance Who Lost Their
Lives or Died During Interrogation or Imprisonment, Volunteer
Soldiers, and Participants of Unarmed Resistance, Participants
of Freedom Fights, to Their Families as approved by Government
of Resolution No. 128 "On the State Support to the Families of
the Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations
Who Lost Their Lives" of 4 February 1999 with the provision "if
they <...> at that time did not have both parents" of Paragraph
2 (wording of 6 October 1998) of Article 2 and Article 4 of the
Law on the State Support to the Families of the Participants of
the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who Lost Their
Lives.
1. It has been mentioned that the formula "did not have
both parents" of Paragraph 2 (wording of 6 October 1998) of
Article 2 of the Law is to be construed as meaning that both
parents were deceased.
2. The formula "did not have both parents--were orphans"
of Item 1 and the formula "did not have both parents--were
orphans" of Section 2 of Item 3.3 of the Procedure mean that
both parents were deceased.
3. Thus the content of the formula "did not have both
parents--were orphans" of Item 1, the formula "did not have
both parents--were orphans" of Section 2 of Item 3.3 of the
Procedure and the formula "did not have both parents" of
Paragraph 2 (wording of 6 October 1998) of Article 2 of the Law
coincide.
4. Taking account of the arguments set forth one is to
conclude that the provision "if they <...> at that time did not
have both parents--were orphans" of Item 1 and the provision
"if they <...> at that time did not have both parents--were
orphans" of Section 2 of Item 3.3 of the Procedure of the
Payment of Onetime Allowances for the Participants of the
1940-1990 Armed Resistance Who Lost Their Lives or Died During
Interrogation or Imprisonment, Volunteer Soldiers, and
Participants of Unarmed Resistance, Participants of Freedom
Fights, to Their Families as approved by Government Resolution
No. 128 "On the State Support to the Families of the
Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who
Lost Their Lives" of 4 February 1999 were not in conflict with
the provision "if they <...> at that time did not have both
parents" of Paragraph 2 (wording of 6 October 1998) of Article
2 of the Law on the State Support to the Families of the
Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who
Lost Their Lives.
5. It has been mentioned that, according to Article 4 of
the Law, the Government shall prepare the procedure of the
payment and granting of onetime allowances to their families of
participants of the resistance to the 1940-1990 occupations who
lost their lives.
6. The Government approved the Procedure of the Payment of
Onetime Allowances for the Participants of the 1940-1990 Armed
Resistance Who Lost Their Lives or Died During Interrogation or
Imprisonment, Volunteer Soldiers, and Participants of Unarmed
Resistance, Participants of Freedom Fights, to Their Families
by Article 1 of Resolution No. 128 "On the State Support to the
Families of the Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990
Occupations Who Lost Their Lives" of 4 February 1999.
7. Having held that that the provision "if they <...> at
that time did not have both parents--were orphans" of Item 1
and the provision "if they <...> at that time did not have both
parents--were orphans" of Section 2 of Item 3.3 of the
Procedure of the Payment of Onetime Allowances for the
Participants of the 1940-1990 Armed Resistance Who Lost Their
Lives or Died During Interrogation or Imprisonment, Volunteer
Soldiers, and Participants of Unarmed Resistance, Participants
of Freedom Fights, to Their Families as approved by Government
Resolution No. 128 "On the State Support to the Families of the
Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who
Lost Their Lives" of 4 February 1999 were not in conflict with
the provision "if they <...> at that time did not have both
parents" of Paragraph 2 (wording of 6 October 1998) of Article
2 of the Law on the State Support to the Families of the
Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who
Lost Their Lives, one is also to hold that the provision "if
they <...> at that time did not have both parents--were
orphans" of Item 1 and the provision "if they <...> at that
time did not have both parents--were orphans" of Section 2 of
Item 3.3 of the Procedure of the Payment of Onetime Allowances
for the Participants of the 1940-1990 Armed Resistance Who Lost
Their Lives or Died During Interrogation or Imprisonment,
Volunteer Soldiers, and Participants of Unarmed Resistance,
Participants of Freedom Fights, to Their Families as approved
by Government Resolution No. 128 "On the State Support to the
Families of the Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990
Occupations Who Lost Their Lives" of 4 February 1999 are not in
conflict with Article 4 of the Law on the State Support to the
Families of the Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990
Occupations Who Lost Their Lives.
IV
On the compliance of the provision "if they <...> at that
time did not have both parents--were orphans" of Item 1 and the
provision "if they <...> at that time did not have both
parents--were orphans" of Section 2 of Item 3.3 of the
Procedure of the Payment of Onetime Allowances for the
Participants of the 1940-1990 Armed Resistance Who Lost Their
Lives or Died During Interrogation or Imprisonment, Volunteer
Soldiers, and Participants of Unarmed Resistance, Participants
of Freedom Fights, to Their Families as approved by Government
Resolution No. 128 "On the State Support to the Families of the
Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who
Lost Their Lives" of 4 February 1999 with Article 29, Item 7 of
Article 94 of the Constitution, as well as with the
constitutional principles of a just civil society and state
under the rule of law.
1. The petitioner has doubts as to whether the provision
"if they <...> at that time did not have both parents--were
orphans" of Item 1 and the provision "if they <...> at that
time did not have both parents--were orphans" of Section 2 of
Item 3.3 of the Procedure are not in conflict with Article 29
of the Constitution.
2. 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 he be granted any privileges on the grounds of gender,
race, nationality, language, origin, social status, beliefs,
convictions, or views."
3. The Constitutional Court has held more than once in its
rulings that these provisions of the Constitution consolidate
the principle of equality of all persons. It must be observed
while passing and applying laws, as well as administering
justice. This principle obligates to apply uniform legal
assessment to homogeneous facts and prohibits to arbitrarily
assess essentially homogeneous facts in a varied manner. The
principle of equality of all persons which is entrenched in
Article 29 of the Constitution means the inborn human right to
be treated equally with the others, this principle sets the
formal equality of all persons, as well as the fact that
persons may not be discriminated nor that they may be granted
privileges.
4. It has been mentioned that the Seimas, having passed
the Law on the State Support to the Families of the
Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who
Lost Their Lives and having established therein that brothers
and sisters of the participants of the armed resistance who
lost their lives, as well as of the participants of the unarmed
resistance who lost their lives, are paid a onetime allowance
of the specified amount if they, at the time of death of the
participant of the resistance to the occupations, were under
the age of 18 and at that time did not have both parents,
implemented the powers established to it by the Constitution.
It has also been mentioned that the formula "did not have
both parents--were orphans" of Item 1, the formula "did not
have both parents--were orphans" of Section 2 of Item 3.3 of
the Procedure and the formula "did not have both parents" of
Paragraph 2 (wording of 6 October 1998) of Article 2 of the Law
mean that both parents were deceased.
5. Upon establishment in Item 1 of the Procedure that
brothers and sisters of the participants of the armed
resistance who lost their lives, as well as of the participants
of the unarmed resistance who lost their lives, are paid a
onetime allowance if they, at the time of death of the
participant of the resistance to the occupations, were under
the age of 18 and at that time did not have both parents--were
orphans, as well as upon establishment of the provision "if
they <...> did not have both parents--were orphans" in Section
2 of Item 3.3 of the Procedure, brothers and sisters of the
participants of the resistance to the occupations who lost
their lives, who, at the time of death of the participant of
the resistance to the occupations, were under the age of 18 and
at that time did not have both parents are treated equally; no
group of the specified persons is granted privileges, nor any
specified persons are discriminated.
6. Taking account of the arguments set forth one is to
conclude that the provision "if they <...> at that time did not
have both parents--were orphans" of Item 1 and the provision
"if they <...> at that time did not have both parents--were
orphans" of Section 2 of Item 3.3 of the Procedure of the
Payment of Onetime Allowances for the Participants of the
1940-1990 Armed Resistance Who Lost Their Lives or Died During
Interrogation or Imprisonment, Volunteer Soldiers, and
Participants of Unarmed Resistance, Participants of Freedom
Fights, to Their Families as approved by Government Resolution
No. 128 "On the State Support to the Families of the
Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who
Lost Their Lives" of 4 February 1999 are not in conflict with
Article 29 of the Constitution.
7. The petitioner has doubts as to whether the provision
"if they <...> at that time did not have both parents--were
orphans" of Item 1 and the provision "if they <...> at that
time did not have both parents--were orphans" of Section 2 of
Item 3.3 of the Procedure are not in conflict with Item 7 of
Article 94 of the Constitution.
According to Item 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution, the
Government shall discharge duties prescribed to the Government
by the Constitution and other laws.
8. It has been mentioned that, under Article 4 of the Law,
the Government shall prepare the procedure of the payment and
granting of onetime allowances for the participants of the
resistance to the 1940-1990 occupations who lost their lives to
their families.
It has also been mentioned that the Government approved
the Procedure of the Payment of Onetime Allowances for the
Participants of the 1940-1990 Armed Resistance Who Lost Their
Lives or Died During Interrogation or Imprisonment, Volunteer
Soldiers, and Participants of Unarmed Resistance, Participants
of Freedom Fights, to Their Families by Resolution No. 128 "On
the State Support to the Families of the Participants of the
Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who Lost Their Lives"
of 4 February 1999.
It has also been mentioned that the contents of the
formula "did not have both parents--were orphans" of Item 1,
the formula "did not have both parents--were orphans" of
Section 2 of Item 3.3 of the Procedure and the formula "did not
have both parents" of Paragraph 2 (wording of 6 October 1998)
of Article 2 of the Law coincide.
9. Having held this, one is to conclude that the provision
"if they <...> at that time did not have both parents--were
orphans" of Item 1 and the provision "if they <...> at that
time did not have both parents--were orphans" of Section 2 of
Item 3.3 of the Procedure of the Payment of Onetime Allowances
for the Participants of the 1940-1990 Armed Resistance Who Lost
Their Lives or Died During Interrogation or Imprisonment,
Volunteer Soldiers, and Participants of Unarmed Resistance,
Participants of Freedom Fights, to Their Families as approved
by Government Resolution No. 128 "On the State Support to the
Families of the Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990
Occupations Who Lost Their Lives" of 4 February 1999 are not in
conflict with Item 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution.
10. The petitioner has doubts as to whether the provision
"if they <...> at that time did not have both parents--were
orphans" of Item 1 and the provision "if they <...> at that
time did not have both parents--were orphans" of Section 2 of
Item 3.3 of the Procedure are not in conflict with the
constitutional principles of a just civil society and state
under the rule of law.
11. The Preamble to the Constitution proclaims the
striving for an open, just, harmonious civil society and a
state under the rule of law. The values and strivings enshrined
in the Constitution are expressed in the constitutional norms
and principles. The striving for an open, just, harmonious
civil society and a state under the rule of law is to be
construed inseparably from the norms and principles of the
Constitution, including the principle of a state under the rule
of law which embodies the strivings entrenched in the Preamble
to the Constitution (Constitutional Court rulings of 23
February 2000, 18 October 2000, 12 July 2001, 4 March 2003 and
4 July 2003).
12. Having held that the provision "if they <...> at that
time did not have both parents--were orphans" of Item 1 and the
provision "if they <...> at that time did not have both
parents--were orphans" of Section 2 of Item 3.3 of the
Procedure of the Payment of Onetime Allowances for the
Participants of the 1940-1990 Armed Resistance Who Lost Their
Lives or Died During Interrogation or Imprisonment, Volunteer
Soldiers, and Participants of Unarmed Resistance, Participants
of Freedom Fights, to Their Families as approved by Government
Resolution No. 128 "On the State Support to the Families of the
Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who
Lost Their Lives" of 4 February 1999 were not in conflict with
the provision "if they <...> at that time did not have both
parents" of Paragraph 2 (wording of 6 October 1998) of Article
2 of the Law on the State Support to the Families of the
Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who
Lost Their Lives, and are not in conflict with Article 4 of the
Law on the State Support to the Families of the Participants of
the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who Lost Their
Lives, as well as that they are not in conflict with Article 29
of the Constitution and Item 7 of Article 94 of the
Constitution, one is to hold that the provision "if they <...>
at that time did not have both parents--were orphans" of Item 1
and the provision "if they <...> at that time did not have both
parents--were orphans" of Section 2 of Item 3.3 of the
Procedure of the Payment of Onetime Allowances for the
Participants of the 1940-1990 Armed Resistance Who Lost Their
Lives or Died During Interrogation or Imprisonment, Volunteer
Soldiers, and Participants of Unarmed Resistance, Participants
of Freedom Fights, to Their Families as approved by Government
Resolution No. 128 "On the State Support to the Families of the
Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who
Lost Their Lives" of 4 February 1999 are not in conflict with
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
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 the provision "if they <...> at that
time did not have both parents--were orphans" of Item 1 and the
provision "if they <...> at that time did not have both
parents--were orphans" of Section 2 of Item 3.3 of the
Procedure of the Payment of Onetime Allowances for the
Participants of the 1940-1990 Armed Resistance Who Lost Their
Lives or Died During Interrogation or Imprisonment, Volunteer
Soldiers, and Participants of Unarmed Resistance, Participants
of Freedom Fights, to Their Families as approved by Government
of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 128 "On the State
Support to the Families of the Participants of the Resistance
to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who Lost Their Lives" of 4
February 1999 is not in conflict with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
2. To recognise that the provision "if they <...> at that
time did not have both parents--were orphans" of Item 1 and the
provision "if they <...> at that time did not have both
parents--were orphans" of Section 2 of Item 3.3 of the
Procedure of the Payment of Onetime Allowances for the
Participants of the 1940-1990 Armed Resistance Who Lost Their
Lives or Died During Interrogation or Imprisonment, Volunteer
Soldiers, and Participants of Unarmed Resistance, Participants
of Freedom Fights, to Their Families as approved by Government
of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 128 "On the State
Support to the Families of the Participants of the Resistance
to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who Lost Their Lives" of 4
February 1999 were not in conflict with the provision "if they
<...> at that time did not have both parents" of Paragraph 2
(wording of 6 October 1998) of Article 2 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the State Support to the Families of the
Participants of the Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who
Lost Their Lives.
3. To recognise that the provision "if they <...> at that
time did not have both parents--were orphans" of Item 1 and the
provision "if they <...> at that time did not have both
parents--were orphans" of Section 2 of Item 3.3 of the
Procedure of the Payment of Onetime Allowances for the
Participants of the 1940-1990 Armed Resistance Who Lost Their
Lives or Died During Interrogation or Imprisonment, Volunteer
Soldiers, and Participants of Unarmed Resistance, Participants
of Freedom Fights, to Their Families as approved by Government
of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 128 "On the State
Support to the Families of the Participants of the Resistance
to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who Lost Their Lives" of 4
February 1999 are not in conflict with Article 4 of the Law on
the State Support to the Families of the Participants of the
Resistance to the 1940-1990 Occupations Who Lost Their Lives.
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