Lietuviškai
Case No. 13/2000-14/2000-20/2000-21/2000-22/2000-25/2000-
31/2000-35/2000-39/2000-8/01-31/01
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE PETITION OF THE VILNIUS REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE
COURT, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE
PROVISIONS OF ITEMS 1 AND 2 OF CHAPTER II OF THE PART OF
REASONING AND OF ITEMS 6 AND 7 OF THE RESOLVING PART OF THE
RULING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
"ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 1 AND 2 OF ARTICLE 4,
PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 3 OF ARTICLE 5, ITEM 1 OF PARAGRAPH 3,
PARAGRAPHS 4, 5 AND 6 OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
LAW ON REMUNERATION FOR WORK OF STATE POLITICIANS, JUDGES AND
STATE OFFICIALS, AS WELL AS CHAPTER II OF THE APPENDIX TO THE
SAME LAW, APPENDIX 6 TO THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON THE
APPROVAL OF THE FINANCIAL INDICES OF THE 2000 STATE BUDGET AND
THE BUDGETS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, ARTICLE 9 OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA LAW ON AMENDING THE LAW ON THE APPROVAL OF THE
FINANCIAL INDICES OF THE 2000 STATE BUDGET AND THE BUDGETS OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RESOLUTION NO. 499 'ON THE TEMPORARY EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE FOR
REMUNERATION FOR WORK TO HEADS AND OTHER OFFICIALS OF STATE
POWER, STATE ADMINISTRATION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT BODIES' OF 29
NOVEMBER 1991, GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RESOLUTION NO. 666 'ON REMUNERATION FOR WORK OF JUDGES OF
COURTS, OFFICIALS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE PROSECUTOR'S
OFFICE AND THE STATE SECURITY DEPARTMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA' OF 24 JUNE 1997, GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA RESOLUTION NO. 1494 'ON THE PARTIAL AMENDMENT OF
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA RESOLUTION NO. 689 "ON
REMUNERATION FOR WORK OF CHIEF OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS OF LAW
AND ORDER INSTITUTIONS AND OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CONTROL
INSTITUTIONS" OF 30 JUNE 1997' OF 28 DECEMBER 1999 WITH THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA" OF 12 JULY 2001 MEAN
ONE OR SEVERAL REASONS, SPECIFIED BY THE PETITIONER
14 March 2006
Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Armanas
Abramavičius, Toma Birmontienė, Egidijus Kūris, Kęstutis
Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Ramutė Ruškytė, Vytautas
Sinkevičius, Stasys Stačiokas and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis,
with the secretary of the hearing-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
pursuant to Article 28 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania, at a procedural sitting of
the Constitutional Court of 14 March 2006 considered the
petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, provided in its ruling of 3 July 2003, requesting
"to construe whether Item 6 of the ruling of the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania 'On the compliance of
Paragraph 1 and 2 of Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article
5, Item 1 of Paragraph 3, Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 7 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on Remuneration for Work of State
Politicians, Judges and State Officials, as well as Chapter II
of the Appendix to the same Law, Appendix 6 to the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments, Article
9 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending the Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and
the Budgets of Local Governments, Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 499 "On the Temporary Experimental
Procedure for Remuneration for Work to Heads and other
Officials of State Power, State Administration and Law
Enforcement Bodies" of 29 November 1991, Government of the
Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 666 "On Remuneration for
Work of Judges of Courts, Officials and Other Employees of the
Prosecutor's Office and the State Security Department of the
Republic of Lithuania" of 24 June 1997, Government of the
Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 "On the Partial
Amendment of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
No. 689 'On Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and
Officers of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement
and Control Institutions' of 30 June 1997" of 28 December 1999
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania' by which
the Constitutional Court dismissed the instituted legal
proceedings on Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 1494 'On the Partial Amendment of Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 "On Remuneration
for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law and Order
Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions"
of 30 June 1997' of 28 December 1999, Item 1 of Chapter II of
the postulating part, while specifying that the legal
proceedings are dismissed because the established legal
regulation is no longer valid; Item 7 of the ruling by which
the Constitutional Court dismissed the instituted legal
proceedings on Paragraph 1 (on the remuneration to judges and
social guarantees) of Article 1 of the Law on the Approval of
the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets
of Local Governments and Item 2 of Chapter II of the
postulating part, while specifying that the legal proceedings
are dismissed because the established legal regulation is no
longer valid, mean one or several of the further specified
reasons, which are of essential significance to the court that
investigates the petitions of the petitioners: that Government
of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 'On the
Partial Amendment of Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 689 "On Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials
and Officers of Law and Order Institutions and of Law
Enforcement and Control Institutions" of 30 June 1997' of 28
December 1999 and the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval
of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the
Budgets of Local Governments to the extent that these acts are
related to the reduction of the remuneration to judges are not
in conflict with the Constitution; that the Constitutional
Court dismissed the instituted legal proceedings on the
compliance of these legal acts with the Constitution by
reasoning it that under the Constitution a person has the right
to protection of his constitutional rights and freedoms not for
the whole period of time of the violation of the Constitution,
but only to the extent that the violations of these rights and
freedoms are continued after the announcement of the
Constitutional Court decision that recognised the legal act
(part thereof) as being in conflict with the Constitution, and
as the legal regulation established by the said acts had no
longer been valid prior to the day of the adoption of the
Constitutional Court decision, thus it made no sense to decide
on their compliance with the Constitution; that the said
decisions to dismiss the legal proceedings were adopted not
because of the afore-specified two reasons, but by executing
the requirements of Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court".
Note: the text of the petition of the petitioner is quoted
in this Decision of the Constitutional Court as it was
presented by the petitioner, i.e. with the abbreviations and
numbering of the items of paragraphs of the Constitutional
Court ruling that is requested to be construed which were made
by the petitioner himself.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, by its ruling of 3 July 2003 requests the
Constitutional Court "to construe whether Item 6 of the ruling
of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania 'On
the compliance of Paragraph 1 and 2 of Article 4, Paragraphs 1
and 3 of Article 5, Item 1 of Paragraph 3, Paragraphs 4, 5 and
6 of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Remuneration
for Work of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, as
well as Chapter II of the Appendix to the same Law, Appendix 6
to the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments, Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on Amending the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of
the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments,
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 499 "On
the Temporary Experimental Procedure for Remuneration for Work
to Heads and other Officials of State Power, State
Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies" of 29 November 1991,
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 666 "On
Remuneration for Work of Judges of Courts, Officials and Other
Employees of the Prosecutor's Office and the State Security
Department of the Republic of Lithuania" of 24 June 1997,
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 "On
the Partial Amendment of Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On Remuneration for Work of Chief
Officials and Officers of Law and Order Institutions and of Law
Enforcement and Control Institutions' of 30 June 1997" of 28
December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania' by which the Constitutional Court dismissed the
instituted legal proceedings on Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 'On the Partial Amendment of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 "On
Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law
and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control
Institutions" of 30 June 1997' of 28 December 1999, Item 1 of
Chapter II of the postulating part, while specifying that the
legal proceedings are dismissed because the established legal
regulation is no longer valid; Item 7 of the ruling by which
the Constitutional Court dismissed the instituted legal
proceedings on Paragraph 1 (on the remuneration to judges and
social guarantees) of Article 1 of the Law on the Approval of
the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets
of Local Governments and Item 2 of Chapter II of the
postulating part, while specifying that the legal proceedings
are dismissed because the established legal regulation is no
longer valid, mean one or several of the further specified
reasons, which are of essential significance to the court that
investigates the petitions of the petitioners: that Government
of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 'On the
Partial Amendment of Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 689 "On Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials
and Officers of Law and Order Institutions and of Law
Enforcement and Control Institutions" of 30 June 1997' of 28
December 1999 and the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval
of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the
Budgets of Local Governments to the extent that these acts are
related to the reduction of the remuneration to judges are not
in conflict with the Constitution; that the Constitutional
Court dismissed the instituted legal proceedings on the
compliance of these legal acts with the Constitution by
reasoning it that under the Constitution a person has the right
to protection of his constitutional rights and freedoms not for
the whole period of time of the violation of the Constitution,
but only to the extent that the violations of these rights and
freedoms are continued after the announcement of the
Constitutional Court decision that recognised the legal act
(part thereof) as being in conflict with the Constitution, and
as the legal regulation established by the said acts had no
longer been valid prior to the day of the adoption of the
Constitutional Court decision, thus it made no sense to decide
on their compliance with the Constitution; that the said
decisions to dismiss the legal proceedings were adopted not
because of the afore-specified two reasons, but by executing
the requirements of Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court".
2. From the arguments of the petitioner it is obvious that
the Constitutional Court is requested to construe whether Item
1 of Chapter II of the part of reasoning (in which, according
to the petitioner, it is specified that the instituted legal
proceedings are dismissed because the corresponding legal
regulation is no longer valid), Item 2 of Chapter II of the
part of reasoning (in which, according to the petitioner, it is
specified that the instituted legal proceedings are dismissed
because the proper legal regulation is no longer valid), Item 6
of the resolving part (by which the instituted legal
proceedings on the compliance of inter alia Government of the
Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 "On the Partial
Amendment of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
No. 689 'On Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and
Officers of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement
and Control Institutions" of 30 June 1997" of 28 December 1999
with the Constitution were dismissed) and Item 7 of the
resolving part (by which the instituted legal proceedings on
the compliance of inter alia Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the
Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State
Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments with the
Constitution were dismissed) of the Constitutional Court Ruling
"On the compliance of Paragraph 1 and 2 of Article 4,
Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 5, Item 1 of Paragraph 3,
Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Remuneration for Work of State Politicians, Judges and
State Officials, as well as Chapter II of the Appendix to the
same Law, Appendix 6 to the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and
the Budgets of Local Governments, Article 9 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending the Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments, Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 499 'On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for
Remuneration for Work to Heads and other Officials of State
Power, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies' of 29
November 1991, Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 666 'On Remuneration for Work of Judges of
Courts, Officials and Other Employees of the Prosecutor's
Office and the State Security Department of the Republic of
Lithuania' of 24 June 1997, Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 'On the Partial Amendment of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 "On
Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law
and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control
Institutions" of 30 June 1997' of 28 December 1999 with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" of 12 July 2001
(hereinafter also referred to as the Constitutional Court
ruling of 12 July 2001) mean one or several of the following
reasons:
- the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments and Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 1494 "On the Partial Amendment of Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On Remuneration
for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law and Order
Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions'
of 30 June 1997" of 28 December 1999 to the extent that these
legal acts are related to the decrease of the remuneration to
judges are not in conflict with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania;
- the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial
Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local
Governments and Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 1494 "On the Partial Amendment of Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On Remuneration
for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law and Order
Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions'
of 30 June 1997" of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania were dismissed because the legal
regulation, established by the said legal acts had been no
longer valid prior to the day of the adoption of the said
Constitutional Court ruling, thus it made no sense to decide on
their compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania because, under the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, a person has the right to protection of his
constitutional rights and freedoms not for the whole period of
time of the violation of the Constitution, but only to the
extent that the violations of these rights and freedoms are
continued after the announcement of the Constitutional Court
decision that recognised the legal act (part thereof) as being
in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;
- the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial
Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local
Governments and Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 1494 "On the Partial Amendment of Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On Remuneration
for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law and Order
Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions'
of 30 June 1997" of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania were dismissed not due to the two
said reasons but by executing the requirements of Paragraph 4
of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court.
3. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, by the said ruling also applied to the
Constitutional Court with the petition, requesting to
investigate whether Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court was not in conflict with Articles 6, 30,
109 and 110 of the Constitution, with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law and whether
Paragraph 3 of Article 11 and Paragraph 2 (to the extent that,
according to the petitioner, it establishes possibilities to
reduce the remuneration to the judge and other social
guarantees) of Article 96 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Courts were not in conflict with Articles 5 and 109 and
Paragraph 1 of Article 104 of the Constitution as well as with
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
4. By its decision of 26 January 2006, the Constitutional
Court separated the petition of the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, to the extent that it is
requested to construe what is meant by one or several of the
reasons, specified by the petitioner, in Items 1 and 2 of
Chapter II of the part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the
resolving part of the Constitutional Court Ruling "On the
compliance of Paragraph 1 and 2 of Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and
3 of Article 5, Item 1 of Paragraph 3, Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of
Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Remuneration for
Work of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, as well
as Chapter II of the Appendix to the same Law, Appendix 6 to
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial
Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local
Governments, Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Amending the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of
the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments,
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 499 'On
the Temporary Experimental Procedure for Remuneration for Work
to Heads and other Officials of State Power, State
Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies' of 29 November 1991,
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 666 'On
Remuneration for Work of Judges of Courts, Officials and Other
Employees of the Prosecutor's Office and the State Security
Department of the Republic of Lithuania' of 24 June 1997,
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 'On
the Partial Amendment of Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 689 "On Remuneration for Work of Chief
Officials and Officers of Law and Order Institutions and of Law
Enforcement and Control Institutions" of 30 June 1997' with the
Constitution of the republic of Lithuania" of 12 July 2001 into
an individual case that was given reference No.
13/2000-14/2000-20/2000-21/2000-22/2000-25/2000-31/2000-35/2000
-39/2000-8/01-31/01 (i.e. the same number that was given to the
constitutional justice case, in which the Constitutional Court
ruling of 12 July 2001 was adopted).
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On 12 July 2001, the Constitutional Court adopted the
Ruling "On the compliance of Paragraph 1 and 2 of Article 4,
Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 5, Item 1 of Paragraph 3,
Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Remuneration for Work of State Politicians, Judges and
State Officials, as well as Chapter II of the Appendix to the
same Law, Appendix 6 to the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and
the Budgets of Local Governments, Article 9 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending the Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments, Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 499 'On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for
Remuneration for Work to Heads and other Officials of State
Power, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies' of 29
November 1991, Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 666 'On Remuneration for Work of Judges of
Courts, Officials and Other Employees of the Prosecutor's
Office and the State Security Department of the Republic of
Lithuania' of 24 June 1997, Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 'On the Partial Amendment of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 "On
Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law
and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control
Institutions" of 30 June 1997' with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania".
2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, requests to construe the provisions of Items 1 and
2 of Chapter II of the part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of
the resolving part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 12
July 2001 in the aspect pointed out by the petitioner-whether
these provisions mean one or several reasons, specified by the
petitioner.
2.1. In Item 1 of Chapter II of the part of reasoning of
the Constitutional Court ruling of 12 July 2001 it is held:
"On 3 February 1993, the Seimas enacted the Law 'On the
Official Salaries of Judges of Courts, Employees of the
Prosecutor's Office, State Arbiters and Employees of the State
Control Department of the Republic of Lithuania' wherein it was
established that until respective laws are specified, salaries
of judges shall be established by Government resolutions. The
provision of this law that until respective laws are specified,
salaries of judges shall be established by Government
resolutions meant a temporary commissioning for the Government
to regulate the said relations.
On 29 August 2000, the Seimas enacted the Law on
Remuneration for Work of State Politicians, Judges and State
Officials whereby salaries of judges were established. It means
that after this law had gone into effect, the commissioning for
the Government to establish salaries of judges, which had been
provided for by the aforementioned 3 February 1993 Law 'On the
Official Salaries of Judges of Courts, Employees of the
Prosecutor's Office, State Arbiters and Employees of the State
Control Department of the Republic of Lithuania', became null
and void. Taking account of the fact that the Law regulates the
relations of judges' salaries differently from the Government
resolutions, the legal regulation established in Government
Resolution No. 499 'On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for
Remuneration for Work to Heads and Other Officials of State
Power, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies' of 29
November 1991, Government Resolution No. 666 'On Remuneration
for Work of Judges of Courts, Officials and Other Employees of
the Prosecutor's Office and the State Security Department of
the Republic of Lithuania' of 24 June 1997 and Government
Resolution No. 1494 'On the Partial Amendment of Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 "On Remuneration
for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law and Order
Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions"
of 30 June 1997' of 28 December 1999 is no longer in force.
Taking account of this, it is to be held that there are grounds
to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings in this part of the
case. In this part of the case the instituted legal proceedings
shall be dismissed."
2.2. In Item 2 of Chapter II of the part of reasoning of
the Constitutional Court ruling of 12 July 2001 it is held:
"In Appendix 6 to the 23 December 1999 Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments,
'Distribution of the Expenses to Law Institutions for Program
1.1 'Implementation of the Outline of the Reform of the Legal
System' was established. By Article 9 of the 13 July 2000
Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending the Law on the Approval
of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the
Budgets of Local Governments amendments were made in Appendix 6
to the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments.
The petitioners-the Vilnius City Court of the First
District by its two rulings of 16 May 2000 and the Higher
Administrative Court by its ruling of 7 November 2000 request
investigation into the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 1
(on reduction of salaries and other social guarantees of
judges) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments with the Constitution to the extent that
Appendix 6 to the law provides for the means for the expenses
on the remuneration for work of the courts pointed out in the
petitions with the Constitution, and into the compliance of
Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending the Law
on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State
Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments whereby amendments
were made to Appendix 6 to the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and
the Budgets of Local Governments which provided the means for
financing of remuneration for work of particular courts, with
the Constitution.
The legal relations regulated by the 23 December 1999
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial
Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local
Governments and the 13 July 2000 Republic of Lithuania Law on
Amending the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of
the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments
ended on 31 December 2000. At present the budgetary relations
are regulated by another law.
Taking account of the fact that the disputed legal
regulation is no longer in force, one is to hold that there are
grounds to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings in this
part of the case. In this part of the case the instituted legal
proceedings shall be dismissed."
2.3. In Item 6 of the part resolving part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 12 July 2001 it is held:
"To dismiss the initiated legal proceedings concerning the
compliance of Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 499 'On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for
Remuneration for Work to Heads and Other Officials of State
Power, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies' of 29
November 1991, Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 666 'On Remuneration for Work of Judges of
Courts, Officials and Other Employees of the Prosecutor's
Office and the State Security Department of the Republic of
Lithuania' of 24 June 1997, Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 'On the Partial Amendment of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 "On
Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law
and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control
Institutions" of 30 June 1997' of 28 December 1999 with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania."
2.4. In Item 7 of the part resolving part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 12 July 2001 it is held:
"To dismiss the initiated legal proceedings concerning the
compliance of Appendix 6 to Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial
Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local
Governments and Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Amending the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of
the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania."
2.5. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, requests to construe whether the provisions of
Items 1 and 2 of Chapter II of the part of reasoning and Items
6 and 7 of the resolving part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 12 July 2001 mean one or several of the following
reasons specified by the petitioner:
- the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments and Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 1494 "On the Partial Amendment of Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On Remuneration
for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law and Order
Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions'
of 30 June 1997" of 28 December 1999 to the extent that these
legal acts are related to the decrease of the remuneration to
judges are not in conflict with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania;
- the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial
Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local
Governments and Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 1494 "On the Partial Amendment of Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On Remuneration
for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law and Order
Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions'
of 30 June 1997" of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania were dismissed because the legal
regulation, established by the said legal acts had been no
longer valid prior to the day of the adoption of the said
Constitutional Court ruling, thus it made no sense to decide on
their compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania because under the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania a person has the right to protection of his
constitutional rights and freedoms not for the whole period of
time of the violation of the Constitution, but only to the
extent that the violations of these rights and freedoms are
continued after the announcement of the Constitutional Court
ruling that recognised the legal act (part thereof) as being in
conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;
- the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial
Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local
Governments and Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 1494 "On the Partial Amendment of Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On Remuneration
for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law and Order
Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions'
of 30 June 1997" of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania were dismissed not due to the two
said reasons but by executing the requirements of Paragraph 4
of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court.
3. Neither the part of reasoning, nor the resolving part
contains any statements that Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and
the Budgets of Local Governments and Government of the Republic
of Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 "On the Partial Amendment of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On
Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law
and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control
Institutions' of 30 June 1997", specified by the Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, to any extent
are or are not in conflict with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
Thus, the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioner, requesting to construe whether the
provisions of Items 1 and 2 of Chapter II of the part of
reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the resolving part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 12 July 2001 mean that (or also
that) (such implication is made by the petitioner) the Republic
of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of
the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments and
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 "On
the Partial Amendment of Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On Remuneration for Work of Chief
Officials and Officers of Law and Order Institutions and of Law
Enforcement and Control Institutions' of 30 June 1997" of 28
December 1999 to the extent that these legal acts are related
to the decrease of the remuneration to judges are not in
conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, is
to be treated as a petition, which does not request the
Constitutional Court to construe the provisions of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 12 July 2001 specified by the
petitioner, but which requests to decide whether Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments and
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 "On
the Partial Amendment of Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On Remuneration for Work of Chief
Officials and Officers of Law and Order Institutions and of Law
Enforcement and Control Institutions' of 30 June 1997" of 28
December 1999 (to the corresponding extent) are not in conflict
with the Constitution.
Such petition of the petitioner is also to be assessed as
a request for the Constitutional Court to the corresponding
extent to revise its ruling of 12 July 2001.
4. In Items 1 and 2 of Chapter II of the part of reasoning
of the Constitutional Court ruling the arguments and reasons
are specified, which (accordingly) are (as well as other
arguments and reasons, specified in the said Constitutional
Court ruling) grounds for Items 6 and 7 of the resolving part
of this Constitutional Court ruling.
The petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court,
the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the
provisions of Items 1 and 2 of Chapter II of the part of
reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the resolving part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 12 July 2001 mean that (or also
that) (such implication is made by the petitioner) the
instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of
the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments and
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 "On
the Partial Amendment of Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On Remuneration for Work of Chief
Officials and Officers of Law and Order Institutions and of Law
Enforcement and Control Institutions' of 30 June 1997" of 28
December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania were dismissed as the legal regulation established by
the said legal acts had been no longer valid prior to the day
of the adoption of the Constitutional Court ruling, thus it
made no sense to decide on their compliance with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania because, under the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, a person has the
right to protection of his constitutional rights and freedoms
not for the whole period of time of the violation of the
Constitution, but only to the extent that the violations of
these rights and freedoms are continued after the announcement
of the Constitutional Court decision that recognised the legal
act (part thereof) as being in conflict with the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania and whether they mean that (such
implication is also made by the petitioner) the instituted
legal proceedings on the compliance of Republic of Lithuania
Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State
Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments and Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 "On the Partial
Amendment of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
No. 689 'On Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and
Officers of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement
and Control Institutions' of 30 June 1997" with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania were dismissed not
because of the other two reasons, specified by the petitioner,
but by executing the requirements of Paragraph 4 of Article 69
of the Law on the Constitutional Court, is to be treated as a
petition not requesting the Constitutional Court to construe
the provisions of the Constitutional Court ruling of 12 July
2001 specified by the petitioner, but to specify the arguments
and reasons consolidating and formulating the provisions of
Items 6 and 7 of the resolving part of this Constitutional
Court ruling which (such implication is made by the
petitioner), allegedly, are not specified (accordingly) in
Items 1 and 2 of Chapter II of the part of reasoning and Items
6 and 7 of the resolving part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 12 July 2001.
5. Thus, although the Constitutional Court is officially
requested to construe (in the aspect specified by the
petitioner) the provisions of Items 1 and 2 of Chapter II of
the part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the resolving part
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 12 July 2001, actually it
is requested that the Constitutional Court:
- decide whether Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 1494 "On the Partial Amendment of Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On Remuneration
for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law and Order
Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions'
of 30 June 1997" of 28 December 1999 (to the corresponding
extent) is not in conflict with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, and in this way to revise the
Constitutional Court ruling of 12 July 2001;
- specify the arguments and reasons consolidating and
formulating the provisions of Items 6 and 7 of the resolving
part of this Constitutional Court ruling which, allegedly, are
not specified (accordingly) in Items 1 and 2 of Chapter II of
the part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the resolving part
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 12 July 2001.
6. While deciding on the compliance of legal acts (parts
thereof) of lower power with legal acts of higher power, inter
alia (and, first of all) the Constitution, and while executing
its other constitutional powers, the Constitutional Court
administers constitutional justice, guarantees the supremacy of
the Constitution in the legal system as well as the
constitutional legality. The guaranteed administration of
justice, supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system and
constitutional legality imply that every Constitutional Court
decision must be argued properly (clearly and rationally) in
the corresponding Constitutional Court act. In this context, it
is to be noted that, as the Constitutional Court has held, a
ruling of the Constitutional Court is integral, its resolving
part is based upon the arguments of the part of reasoning
(Constitutional Court decisions of 12 January 2000, 11 February
2004, 13 February 2004 and 10 February 2005).
On the other hand, the situations are not impossible when
certain provisions of the Constitutional Court ruling or other
final act are not clear enough to the subject who must follow
the Constitutional Court ruling, or its other final act, and
execute it. Nor are such situations impossible, when due to
certain reasons the Constitutional Court sees that certain
provisions of the Constitutional Court ruling or other final
act have to be construed in order to ensure proper execution of
the Constitutional Court ruling or other final act so that this
Constitutional Court ruling or other final act would be
followed.
Even though the powers of the Constitutional Court to
construe its rulings and other final acts are not expressis
verbis consolidated in the Constitution, they doubtlessly arise
from the Constitution-the entirety of the constitutional legal
regulation (inter alia the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law), such Constitutional Court powers are
implied by the constitutional mission of the Constitutional
Court itself to administer constitutional justice, guarantee
the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system and
constitutional legality. This implies the necessity for the
Constitutional Court under the specified circumstances to
construe a corresponding Constitutional Court ruling or other
final act.
The purpose of the institute of construction of
Constitutional Court rulings and other final acts is to reveal
the contents and meaning of corresponding Constitutional Court
rulings or other final acts more broadly and in more detail if
it is necessary in order to ensure proper execution of that
Constitutional Court ruling or other final act so that this
Constitutional Court ruling or other final would be followed.
The powers of the Constitutional Court, which arise from
the Constitution, to construe its rulings and other final acts
imply the duty of the legislator to establish, by the Law on
the Constitutional Court (that under Paragraph 2 of Article 102
of the Constitution establishes the status of the
Constitutional Court and the procedure for the execution of its
powers), the following: on the initiative of which subjects the
Constitutional Court ruling or other final act may be
construed; what is the procedure of applying to the
Constitutional Court with a petition, requesting to construe
the Constitutional Court ruling or other final act; what legal
act the Constitutional Court adopts on construing its rulings.
The Law on the Constitutional Court can also establish other
elements regarding the implementation of the Constitutional
Court powers to construe its rulings.
7. The procedure of implementation of corresponding
Constitutional Court powers is established in the Law on the
Constitutional Court (wording of 3 February 1993, with
subsequent amendments and supplements), as well as in the Rules
of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (with
subsequent amendment and supplement), approved by the
Constitutional Court Decision "On the Approval of the Rules of
the Constitutional Court" of 5 March 2004, which, under Article
3 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, regulates inter alia
internal questions of the Constitutional Court.
7.1. In Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court
it is established that the rulings of the Constitutional Court
may only be officially construed by the Constitutional Court at
the request of the parties to the case, of other institutions
or persons to whom it was sent, or on its own initiative.
Under Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, a Constitutional Court ruling shall be
sent to the justices of the Constitutional Court, the parties
to the case, the Seimas, the President of the Republic, the
Government, the President of the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor
General and the Minister of Justice. Under Paragraph 2 of
Article 60 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the
President of the Constitutional Court may order that a
Constitutional Court ruling be sent to other institutions,
officials, or citizens.
In Item 14 of Section 1 of Chapter VI of the Rules of the
Constitutional Court it is established that a Constitutional
Court ruling is construed upon request of the entities
specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, as well as upon the initiative of the
Constitutional Court; a Constitutional Court ruling is also
construed upon request of the entities to which the
Constitutional Court ruling was sent and where it is indicated
that this is done according to Paragraph 2 of Article 60 of the
Law on the Constitutional Court. The instruction to send the
ruling according to Paragraph 2 of Article 60 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court is given by the President of the
Constitutional Court by issuing an order; the Constitutional
Court does not construe its rulings upon requests of other
entities.
7.2. The powers of the entities, indicated in Article 61
of the Law on the Constitutional Court to apply to the
Constitutional Court with a petition, requesting to construe a
Constitutional Court ruling, mean that the Constitutional Court
must be requested to construe the precisely indicated
provisions of the corresponding Constitutional Court ruling.
7.3. In Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court it is established that the Constitutional
Court must construe its ruling without changing its content.
The Constitutional Court has held that while construing its
ruling, the Constitutional Court is bound both by the content
of the part of resolution and that of reasoning of its ruling
(Constitutional Court decisions of 12 January 2000, 11 February
2004, 13 February 2004 and 10 February 2005).
7.4. In Paragraph 2 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court it is consolidated that a decision of a
Constitutional Court ruling shall be adopted as a separate
document. The Constitutional Court has held that the decision
adopted concerning construction of a Constitutional Court
ruling is inseparable from the Constitutional Court ruling
(Constitutional Court decisions of 12 January 2000, 11 February
2004, 13 February 2004 and 10 February 2005).
8. The provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law
on the Constitutional Court that the Constitutional Court must
construe its ruling without changing its content mean, among
other things, that while construing its ruling, the
Constitutional Court cannot construe its content so that the
meaning of its provisions, inter alia the notional entirety of
the elements constituting the content of the ruling, the
arguments and reasons upon which that Constitutional Court
ruling is based, is changed.
The indicated provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court also means that the
Constitutional Court may not construe what was not investigated
in that constitutional justice case, subsequent to which the
construed ruling was adopted, either.
Thus, the institute of construction of a Constitutional
Court ruling (other final act) virtually differs from the
institute of revision of a Constitutional Court ruling (other
final act).
9. It is to be emphasized that the powers of the entities,
specified in Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court,
to apply to the Constitutional Court with a petition,
requesting to construe a Constitutional Court ruling
(provisions thereof), do not mean that it is possible to apply
to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to
construe whether any of the provisions of its ruling have only
one or more meanings, which are specified by the petitioner, in
such a way that the Constitutional Court would have to restrict
itself to the alternatives specified by the petitioner. Neither
do the said arguments mean that it is possible to apply to the
Constitutional Court with a petition, requesting to construe,
whether certain provisions of that ruling were consolidated and
formulated due to one or more reasons, specified by the
petitioner.
It is also to be emphasized that the Constitutional Court
powers, which arise from the Constitution and which are
established in the Law on the Constitutional Court, to
officially construe its rulings, may not be interpreted that,
purportedly, they also include the right and/or duty of the
Constitutional Court to construe the arguments or reasons of
the consolidation and formulation of its rulings or separate
provisions thereof that are not specified in the Constitutional
Court ruling itself and which (as implications) are specified
by the petitioner in his petition requesting to construe the
Constitutional Court ruling (provisions thereof).
10. Taking account of the arguments set forth, a
conclusion is to be drawn that a petition of the Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether Items 1 and 2 of Chapter II of the part of
reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the resolving part of the
Constitutional Court Ruling "On the compliance of Paragraph 1
and 2 of Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 5, Item 1 of
Paragraph 3, Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 7 of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Remuneration for Work of State Politicians,
Judges and State Officials, as well as Chapter II of the
Appendix to the same Law, Appendix 6 to the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments, Article
9 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending the Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and
the Budgets of Local Governments, Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 499 'On the Temporary Experimental
Procedure for Remuneration for Work to Heads and other
Officials of State Power, State Administration and Law
Enforcement Bodies' of 29 November 1991, Government of the
Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 666 'On Remuneration for
Work of Judges of Courts, Officials and Other Employees of the
Prosecutor's Office and the State Security Department of the
Republic of Lithuania' of 24 June 1997, Government of the
Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 'On the Partial
Amendment of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
No. 689 "On Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and
Officers of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement
and Control Institutions" of 30 June 1997' with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" of 12 July 2001 mean
one or several reasons, specified by the petitioner, which, as
held in this Constitutional Court decision, actually, is a
petition, requesting to decide whether Government Resolution
No. 1494 "On the Partial Amendment of Government of the
Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On Remuneration for
Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law and Order
Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions'
of 30 June 1997" of 28 December 1999 (to the corresponding
extent) is not in conflict with the Constitution (and thus to
revise to the corresponding extent the Constitutional Court
ruling of 12 July 2001), as well as the petition requesting to
specify the arguments and reasons consolidating and formulating
the provisions of Items 6 and 7 of the resolving part of this
Constitutional Court ruling, which, purportedly, are not
specified (accordingly) in Items 1 and 2 of Chapter II of the
part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the resolving part of
the Constitutional Court ruling of 12 July 2001, may not be
granted subsequent to the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and the Law on the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Lithuania.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 28 and 61 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has passed
the following
decision:
To refuse to construe, subsequent to the petition of the
Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, provided
in the 3 June 2003 ruling of the said court, whether Items 1
and 2 of Chapter II of the part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7
of the resolving part of the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Lithuania Ruling "On the compliance of Paragraph 1
and 2 of Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 5, Item 1 of
Paragraph 3, Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 7 of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Remuneration for Work of State Politicians,
Judges and State Officials, as well as Chapter II of the
Appendix to the same Law, Appendix 6 to the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments, Article
9 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending the Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and
the Budgets of Local Governments, Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 499 'On the Temporary Experimental
Procedure for Remuneration for Work to Heads and other
Officials of State Power, State Administration and Law
Enforcement Bodies' of 29 November 1991, Government of the
Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 666 'On Remuneration for
Work of Judges of Courts, Officials and Other Employees of the
Prosecutor's Office and the State Security Department of the
Republic of Lithuania' of 24 June 1997, Government of the
Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1494 'On the Partial
Amendment of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
No. 689 "On Remuneration for Work of Chief Officials and
Officers of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement
and Control Institutions" of 30 June 1997' of 28 December 1999
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" of 12 July
2001, , mean one or several of the following reasons:
- the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments and Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 1494 "On the Partial Amendment of Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On Remuneration
for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law and Order
Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions'
of 30 June 1997" of 28 December 1999 to the extent that these
legal acts are related to the decrease of remuneration of
judges are not in conflict with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania;
- the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial
Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local
Governments and Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 1494 "On the Partial Amendment of Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On Remuneration
for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law and Order
Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions'
of 30 June 1997" of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania were dismissed because the legal
regulation established by the said legal acts had been no
longer valid prior to the day of the adoption of the said
Constitutional Court ruling, thus it made no sense to decide on
their compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania because, under the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, a person has the right to protection of his
constitutional rights and freedoms not for the whole period of
time of the violation of the Constitution, but only to the
extent that the violations of these rights and freedoms are
continued after the announcement of the Constitutional Court
decision that recognised the legal act (part thereof) as being
in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;
- the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial
Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local
Governments and Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 1494 "On the Partial Amendment of Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 689 'On Remuneration
for Work of Chief Officials and Officers of Law and Order
Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions'
of 30 June 1997" of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania were dismissed not due to the two
said reasons but by executing the requirements of Paragraph 4
of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Lithuania.
This decision of the Constitutional Court is final and not
subject to appeal.
The decision is promulgated in the name of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
Toma Birmontienė
Egidijus Kūris
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Ramutė Ruškytė
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis