Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON RETURNING THE PETITION (NO. 1B-41/2006) OF THE KLAIPĖDA
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING TO
INVESTIGATE WHETHER ITEM 1 (WORDING OF 26 NOVEMBER 2004 SPECIFIED
IN THE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER) OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 7 OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON SOCIAL INSURANCE OF ACCIDENTS AT
WORK AND OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES, ITEM 13.1 (WORDING OF 30 AUGUST
2004 SPECIFIED IN THE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER) OF THE
REGULATIONS CONCERNING SOCIAL INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR ACCIDENTS AT
WORK AND OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY RESOLUTION
NO. 309 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA "ON
CONFIRMATION OF THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING SOCIAL INSURANCE
BENEFITS FOR ACCIDENTS AT WORK AND OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES" OF 22
MARCH 2004 ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 29,
PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 48 AND ARTICLE 52 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE
OF A STATE UNDER THE RULE OF LAW BACK TO THE PETITIONER
11 October 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 hearingDaiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the procedural sitting of the Constitutional Court
considered the petition (No. 1B-41/2006) of the Klaipėda Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate
whether Item 1 (wording of 26 November 2004 specified in the
petition of the petitioner) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at
Work and Occupational Diseases and Item 13.1 (wording of 30
August 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of the
Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at
Work and Occupational Diseases which were confirmed by Resolution
No. 309 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania "On
Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance
Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" of 22
March 2004 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29,
paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principle
of a state under the rule of law.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. The Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, was considering an administrative case. By its ruling
the court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to
the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to
investigate whether Item 1 (wording of 26 November 2004 specified
in the petition of the petitioner) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of
the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases and Item 13.1 (wording of 30 August 2004 specified in
the petition of the petitioner) of the Regulations Concerning
Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases (hereinafter also referred to as the Regulations) which
were confirmed by Government Resolution No. 309 "On Confirmation
of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" of 22 March 2004 are
not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of
Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
2. The petition was received at the Constitutional Court
on 7 September 2006.
II
The petition of the petitioner is based on the following
arguments.
1. In the disputed items of the Law on Social Insurance
of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases and the
Regulations, the legal regulation is established that accidents
at work, on the way to work or from work, or established acute
occupational diseases, upon investigation of which it is
established that they meet the conditions established by the said
law, but they have happened inter alia when an insured person was
drunk or intoxicated through narcotics, toxic or psychotropic
substances and when it was not related to the peculiarities of
the technology of work attributed to him by the insurance payer,
are not recognised as events insured against.
Thus, in all cases when during the accident the employee
was drunk or intoxicated through narcotics, toxic or psychotropic
substances and when it was not related to the peculiarities of
the technology of work attributed to him by the insurance payer,
that accident, irrespective of the reasons thereof, is recognised
as an event not insured against. Such accident is recognised as
an event not insured against even in the cases when it happened
due to the fault of the employer who did not create safe and
healthy working conditions and the drunkenness of the employee
was of a low degree and had no influence on the accident.
According to the petitioner, thus the employee (and if he dies
members of his family) is deprived of the right to receive the
social insurance benefits for accidents at work even in the cases
when drunkenness of the employee had no influence on the accident
and not the employee but the employer is guilty of the accident
at work.
2. According to the petitioner, previously (before the
disputed legal regulation was established) established legal
regulation was not so "categorical": while investigating
accidents at work, it used to be established whether the
drunkenness of the employee or his intoxication through
narcotics, toxic or psychotropic substances, when it was not
related to he peculiarities of the technology of work attributed
to him by the insurance payer, had any influence on that
accident.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania provides for general requirements, concerning the
content, form and attachments, of petitions presented to the
Constitutional Court, requesting to investigate the compliance of
legal acts with the Constitution (Article 66 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court), and special requirements concerning
rulings of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of
Lithuania, of regional, and local courts by which one applies to
the Constitutional Court (Article 67 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court). The said requirements are concretised in
Section 1 of Chapter VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Court.
Under Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court, a petition for the investigation of the
compliance of a legal act with the Constitution must contain the
precise title of the disputed legal act, its number, the date of
its adoption, and other data which are necessary for
identification thereof, as well as the source of its publication
(if it was published). Under Item 8 of the same paragraph, a
petition for the investigation of the compliance of a legal act
with the Constitution must contain the position of the petitioner
concerning the compliance of an appropriate act with the
Constitution and legal support of such position containing
references to laws.
Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court
establishes what must be specified in a petition requesting to
investigate the compliance of a law or other legal act (paragraph
thereof) with the Constitution, when courts apply to the
Constitutional Court with such petition. Under Paragraph 2 of
this article, the court ruling, by the means of which the court
applies to the Constitutional Court requesting to investigate
whether the legal act is not in conflict with the Constitution,
must include the legal arguments presenting the opinion of the
court on the conflict of a law or other legal act with the
Constitution (Item 5), as well as the formulated petition of the
court to the Constitutional Court (Item 6).
Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court inter
alia establishes that a copy of the whole text of the disputed
legal act shall be attached to the petition (Item 1 of Paragraph
3); that 30 copies of the copies are submitted to the
Constitutional Court (Item 1 of Paragraph 5).
Under Paragraph 1 (wording of 7 July 2005) of Article 2
of the Republic of Lithuania Law "On the Procedure of Publishing
and Entry into Effect of Laws and Other Legal Acts", the official
publishing of laws and other legal acts shall be their publishing
in the official gazette "Valstybės žinios".
Under Item 15 of Section 1 of Chapter VI of the Rules of
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, which was
approved by the Constitutional Court Decision "On Approving the
Rules of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania"
of 5 March 2004 (with subsequent supplement and amendment), the
text of the legal act (part thereof) which is announced in the
official gazette "Valstybės žinios" is to be considered such a
copy.
The general requirements, concerning the content, form
and annexes, of petitions presented to the Constitutional Court,
requesting to investigate the compliance of legal acts with the
Constitution and the special requirements concerning rulings of
courts by which one applies to the Constitutional Court, which
are established in the Law on the Constitutional Court and the
Rules of the Constitutional Court, are also applicable to the
rulings of specialised courts, which are provided for in
Paragraph 2 of Article 111 of the Constitution, by which one
applies to the Constitutional Court (Constitutional Court
decision of 31 March 2005).
2. It is to be held that under the Law on the
Constitutional Court, including the cases when the disputed legal
acts (parts thereof) were amended and/or supplemented, when
applying to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting
to investigate the compliance of the legal act (part thereof)
with the legal act of higher power, inter alia the Constitution,
courts must precisely specify in their ruling the wording of the
legal act (part thereof) whose compliance with the legal act of
higher power is disputed. A copy of the whole text of the
disputed legal act (part thereof) of namely that wordingthe text
of the legal act (part thereof) which is published in the
official gazette "Valstybės žinios"must be attached to the
petition requesting to investigate whether the disputed legal act
(part thereof) is not in conflict with the legal act of higher
power, inter alia the Constitution.
Otherwise, the petition of the court requesting to
investigate the compliance of the legal act (part thereof) with
the legal act of higher power, inter alia the Constitution,
taking account of all the significant circumstances, may, by an
ordinance of the President of the Constitutional Court or by a
decision of the Constitutional Court, be recognized as being not
in line with the requirements of Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article
66 and Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court and, under Paragraph 1 of Article 70 of the
Law on the Constitutional Court, must be returned to the
petitioner. The return of a petition shall not take away the
right to apply to the Constitutional Court according to the
common procedure after removal of the deficiencies thereof
(Paragraph 2 of Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court).
II
1. The petitioner requests to investigate, whether inter
alia Item 1 (wording of 26 November 2004 specified in the
petition of the petitioner) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the
Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29,
Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and
with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law.
The petitioner also specifies the number of the law whose
compliance with the Constitution he disputeswhich is No. VIII-
1509and the fact that Item 1 (wording of 26 November 2004
specified in the petition of the petitioner) of Paragraph 2 of
Article 7 of this Law, the compliance of which with the
Constitution is disputed, came into force "on 1 January 2005".
A copy of the whole text of the Law on Amending the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at
Work and Occupational Diseases (No. IX-1819), adopted by the
Seimas on 11 November 2003the text published in the official
gazette "Valstybės žinios"is attached to the petition.
2. On 23 December 1999, the Seimas adopted the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases, which was provided with number VIII-1509.
This law has been amended and supplemented more than once.
3. On 11 November 2003, the Seimas adopted the Law on
Amending the Republic of Lithuania Law on Social Insurance of
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, whose Article 1
amended the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases (wording of 23 December 1999 with
subsequent amendments and supplements) and set it forth in a new
wording. The Law on Amending the Law on Social Insurance of
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases was provided with
number IX-1819.
In Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Law on Amending the
Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases it was established that "this Law, with the exception of
Article 29" shall come into force "on 1 January 2004", while in
Paragraph 2 of the same article established that "Article 29 of
this Law" shall come into force "on 1 January 2005".
It needs to be noted that the provisions of Paragraphs 1
and 2 of Article 3 of the Law on Amending the Law on Social
Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases are
formulated imprecisely, as there is no Article 29 in the Law on
Amending the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases adopted by the Seimas on 11 November 2003
itself, there are only thee articles therein.
In needs to be held that the specified date of 1 January
2005 is not the date of the commencement of the application of
Article 29 of the Law on Amending the Law on Social Insurance of
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, which was adopted by
the Seimas on 11 November 2003, but of Article 29 of the Law on
Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases
(wording of 11 November 2003).
It is to be held that the Law on Social Insurance of
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases of the new wording
came into force on 1 January 2004 and it had to be applied from
that day, with the exception of Article 29, the date of the
commencement of the application of which had to be 1 January
2005.
In this context, it is also to be noted that under
Article 2 of the Second Section of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on Amending the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases and the Law on Amending the Law on Social
Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, adopted
by the Seimas on 11 November 2004, instead of the number "2005"
in Paragraph 2 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Article 3 of the
Law on Amending the Law on Amending the Law on Social Insurance
of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases the number "2006"
was written. Thus, the commencement of the application of Article
29 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases (wording of 11 November 2003) was moved
from 1 January 2005 to 1 January 2006.
4. In Paragraph 2 (wording of 11 November 2003) of
Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases, it was inter alia established:
"Occupational accidents, accidents on the way to/from
work or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
recognised as events insured against even if upon their
investigation it is established that they meet the conditions
laid down in Article 6 of this Law, but their occurrence
satisfies at least one of the following circumstances:
(1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from
alcohol, narcotics, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was
not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work
attributed to him by the insurance payer <
>."
5. The Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases (wording of 11 November 2003) has been
amended and/or supplemented by: the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Amending Articles 2, 3, 4, 7, 26 and 27 of the Law on Social
Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (No. IX-
2262), adopted by the Seimas on 8 June 2004; the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on Social
Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, the
Provisional Law on Compensation for Damage Pertaining to
Accidents at Work or Occupational Diseases, the Law on Health
Insurance, the Law on Unemployment Social Insurance, the Law on
State Social Insurance Pensions, the Law on Composition of the
Budget of the State Social Insurance Funds, the Law on Social
Integration of the Disabled, the Law on Amending Articles 33, 34,
36 and 45 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions and
Supplementing Article 45¹ thereto, the Law on Amending and
Supplementing Articles 9, 16, 28, 35, 36, 40, 43, 45, 49, 50 and
54 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions and
Supplementing Article 55-6 and Chapter VII Thereto, the Law on
Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 10, 28, 29, 34, 35, 38,
39, 40, 45, 49, 54 and 56 and Supplementing Articles 55-1, 55-2,
55-3, 55-4 and 55-5 thereto, and the Law on Amending and
Supplementing the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance
(No. IX-2540), adopted by the Seimas on 4 November 2004; the Law
on Amending the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases and the Law on Amending the Law on Social
Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (No. IX-
2561), adopted by the Seimas on 11 November 2004; the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on Sickness
and Maternity Social Insurance, the Law on Social Insurance of
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, the Provisional Law
on Compensation for Damage Pertaining to Accidents at Work or
Occupational Diseases and the Law on State Social Insurance (No.
X-211), adopted by the Seimas on 19 May 2005; the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending the Law on State Social Insurance and
the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases (No. X-475), adopted by the Seimas on 23 December 2005;
the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Articles 3, 13, 15 and
26 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases (No. X-668) adopted by the Seimas on 8 June
2006.
6. In the context of the petition at issue, it is to be
noted that Item 1 (wording of 1 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 of
Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases disputed by the petitioner has not been
amended and/or supplemented either before the petitioner's
application to the Constitutional Court with a petition, or
later. At the time of the petitioner's appeal to the
Constitutional Court this item was set forth in the wording of 11
November 2003. It has never been set forth in the wording of 26
November 2004, as specified in the petition of the petitioner.
7. In the context of the petition at issue, it is to be
noted that even though Item 1 (wording of 1 November 2003) of
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, disputed by the
petitioner, has not been amended and/or supplemented, Paragraph 2
(wording of 1 November 2003) of Article 7 of this law in which
this item is set forth, has been amended and supplemented by the
following:
- Article 4 of the Law on Amending Articles 2, 3, 4, 7,
26 and 27 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases adopted by the Seimas on 8 June 2004it
amended and newly set forth Item 2 (wording of 11 November 2003)
of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases;
- Article 3 of the Second Section of the Law on Amending
and Supplementing the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social
Insurance, the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases, the Provisional Law on Compensation for
Damage Pertaining to Accidents at Work or Occupational Diseases
and the Law on State Social Insurance adopted by the Seimas on 19
May 2005it amended and newly set forth Item 6 (wording of 1
November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 8 June 2004) of Article
7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases.
8. It needs to be assumed that the petition of the
petitioner requesting to investigate whether Item 1 (wording of
26 November 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases is not in conflict
with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and
Article 52 of the Constitution and with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law is to be regarded as a
petition requesting to investigate whether Item 1 (wording of 11
November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article
7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of
Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the
Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law.
9. It is to be held that the specified inaccuracies of
the petition of the petitioner requesting to investigate whether
Item 1 (wording of 26 November 2004 specified in the petition of
the petitioner) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Social
Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases is not
in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of
Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (in
particular, taking account of the fact that the Constitutional
Court is requested to investigate whether the item (which is set
forth in the wording in which it has never been set forth) of the
Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases is not in conflict with the Constitution) mean that this
petition is not in line with the requirements of Item 6 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 66 and Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 67
of the Law on the Constitutional Court and under Paragraph 1 of
Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court is to be
returned to the petitioner.
It was mentioned that the return of a petition shall not
take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court
according to the common procedure after removal of the
deficiencies thereof.
III
1. The petitioner requests to investigate whether inter
alia Item 13.1 (wording of 30 August 2004 specified in the
petition of the petitioner) of the Regulations Concerning Social
Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases which were confirmed by the Government Resolution No.
309 "On Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social
Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases" of 22 March 2004 is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of
Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the
Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law.
The petitioner also indicates that Item 13.1 (wording of
30 August 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of
the Regulations, whose compliance with the Constitution he
disputes, came into force on 31 August 2004.
Not only a copy of the whole text of Government
Resolution No. 309 "On Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning
on Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases" of 22 March 2004the text of this
resolution published in the official gazette "Valstybės žinios"
are attached to the petition, but also copies of the whole text
of Government Resolution No. 1074 "On Amending Resolution of the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 309 'On Confirmation
of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases' of 22 March 2004" of
26 August 2004 and of Government Resolution No. 895 "On Amending
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 309
'On Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance
Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases' of 22
March 2004" of 17 August 2005the texts of these Government
resolutions published in the official gazette "Valstybės žinios".
2. On 22 March 2004, the Government adopted Resolution
No. 309 "On Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social
Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases", whose Item 1 confirmed the Regulations of Social
Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases.
This Government resolution came into force on 26 March
2004.
3. In Item 13 of the Regulations it is inter alia
established:
"Occupational accidents at work or established acute
occupational diseases shall also not be recognised as events
insured against even if upon their investigation it is
established that they meet the conditions laid down in Items 7,
8, 10 or 11 of these Resolutions, but their occurrence satisfies
at least one of the following conditions:
13.1. The insured person was inebriated or intoxicated
from alcohol, narcotics, toxic or psychotropic substances and
this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of
work attributed to him by the insurance payer.
The inebriation or intoxication at the time of accident
at work or acute occupational disease are established under the
Procedure for Establishing the State of Inebriation (Drunkenness)
or Intoxication of Drivers of the Means of Transport or Other
Persons, confirmed by Resolution No. 92 of the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania of 15 January 1996 (Official Gazette
"Valstybės žinios", 1996, No. 6-158).
If the inebriation or intoxication is not established
according to the procedure established in the Second Paragraph of
this Item, this fact shall be proved according to the conclusions
of the examinations on the established concentration of alcohol
and intoxicating substances in the biological media of the
organism (blood, urine, saliva and other liquids of the organism)
carried out by the person's health care Institutions, and if
there was no examinationaccording to the clinical symptoms
proving inebriation or intoxication from narcotics, toxic or
psychotropic substances which are established by doctors of a
person's health institution or other medical specialists, who
have necessary qualification and skills, and which are described
in the medical documents of the insured person, as well as by
referring to the conclusion of the commission formed by the
employer or the commission of the investigation of accident at
work <
>."
4. The said Government resolution (the Regulations
confirmed thereby) have been amended by: Government Resolution
No. 1074 "On Amending Resolution of the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania No. 309 'On Confirmation of the Regulations
Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases' of 22 March 2004" of 26 August 2004;
Government Resolution No. 420 "On Amending Resolution of the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 309 'On Confirmation
of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases' of 22 March 2004" of
18 April 2005; Government Resolution No. 895 "On Amending
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 309
'On Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance
Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases' of 22
March 2004" of 17 August 2005; Government Resolution No. 297 "On
Amending Resolution of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania No. 309 'On Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning
Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases' of 22 March 2004" of 27 March 2006 and by Government
Resolution No. 906 "On Amending Resolution of the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania No. 309 'On Confirmation of the
Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at
Work and Occupational Diseases' of 22 March 2004" of 19 September
2006.
5. In the context of the petition at issue, it is to be
emphasized that Item 13.1 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the
Regulations had not been amended and/or supplemented before the
application of the petitioner to the Constitutional Court with a
petition. At the time of the petitioner's application to the
Constitutional Court, Item 13.1 of the Regulations was set forth
in its primary wording of 22 March 2004. It has never been set
forth in the wording of 30 August 2004 as it is specified by the
petitioner.
Moreover, the date of the adoption of the Government
resolution, the compliance of Item 13.1 of which with the
Constitution is disputed by the petitioner, in some places of the
petition of the petitioner is also specified wronglynot 22 March
2004, but 26 March 2004; as mentioned, this is not the date of
adoption of this resolution, but of its coming into force.
6. It needs to be noted that, even though Item 13.1
(wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations had not been
amended and/or supplemented before the application of the
petitioner to the Constitutional Court with a petition, Item 13
of the Regulations, which also included disputed Item 13.1, has
been amended by the following:
- Item 2 of Government Resolution No. 1074 "On Amending
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 309
'On Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance
Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases' of 22
March 2004" of 26 August 2004, which came into force on 31 August
2004it amended and set forth the first section of Item 13.2
(wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations in a new wording;
- Item 2 of Government Resolution No. 906 "On Amending
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 309
'On Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance
Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases' of 22
March 2004" of 19 September 2006, which was adopted already after
the application of the petitioner to the Constitutional Court
with the petition and which came into force on 22 September
2006it amended and set forth the second section of Item 13.2
(wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations in a new wording.
7. An assumption is to be made that the petition of the
petitioner requesting to investigate whether Item 13.1 (wording
of 30 August 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of
the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases which were confirmed
by Government Resolution No. 309 "On Confirmation of the
Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at
Work and Occupational Diseases" of 22 March 2004 is not in
conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article
48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law is to be considered as
a petition requesting to investigate whether Item 13.1 (wording
of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance
Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases which
were confirmed by Government Resolution No. 309 "On Confirmation
of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" of 22 March 2004 is
not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of
Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
8. An assumption is to be made from the arguments of the
petition of the petitioner that he had doubts not on the
compliance of all Item 13.1 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the
Regulations, but only of the first section of this item with
Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article
52 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law.
9. It needs to be held that the specified inaccuracies of
the petition of the petitioner requesting to investigate whether
Item 13.1 (wording of 30 August 2004 specified in the petition of
the petitioner) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance
Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases which
were confirmed by Government Resolution No. 309 "On Confirmation
of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" of 22 March 2004 is
not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of
Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law
(particularly, taking account of the fact that the Constitutional
Court is requested to investigate whether the item of the
Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at
Work and Occupational Diseases which were confirmed by the
Government Resolution No. 309 "On Confirmation of the Regulations
Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases" of 22 March 2004, set forth in the
wording, in which it has never really been set forth, is not in
conflict with the Constitution) means that this petition is not
in line with the requirements of Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article
66 and Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court and, under Paragraph 1 of Article 70 of the
Law on the Constitutional Court, is to be returned to the
petitioner.
It was mentioned that the return of a petition shall not
take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court
according to the common procedure after removal of the
deficiencies thereof.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Article 1, Paragraph 2 of Article 25,
Articles 28, 66, 67 and 70 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 return the petition (No. 1B-41/2006) to the Klaipėda
Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether Item 1 (wording of 26 November 2004 specified
in the petition of the petitioner) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at
Work and Occupational Diseases and Item 13.1 (wording of 30
August 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of the
Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at
Work and Occupational Diseases which were confirmed by the
Resolution No. 309 of the Government of the Republic "On
Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance
Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" of 22
March 2004 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29,
Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principle
of a state under the rule of law.
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