Lietuviškai
Case No. 29/04
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 3 OF ARTICLE 39
(WORDING OF 26 JUNE 2001) OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
LAW ON TAX ADMINISTRATION AND PARAGRAPH 3 OF ARTICLE
18 (WORDING OF 19 FEBRUARY 1998) OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA LAW ON CUSTOMS TARIFFS WITH THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
26 September 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 presence of the representatives of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned, who were Inga
Jarukaitienė, senior advisor of the Law Department of the Office
of the Seimas, and Virgaudas Milušauskas, advisor of the
Committee on Budget and Finance of the Seimas,
pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public
hearing on 25 September 2006 heard case No. 29/04 subsequent to
the 19 May 2004 petition of the Šiauliai Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Article
39 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Tax Administration, to the
extent that it establishes that the size of fine for unpaid or
not duly paid taxes and the procedure according to which the fine
shall be paid and calculated shall be established by the Minister
of Finance by taking into account the leveraged indicator of the
average fine rate of the last calendar quarter of the Republic of
Lithuania, paid on Government bonds issued for a term of one
year, in litas, as well as that the size of fine shall be
determined by increasing the average fine rate by up to 10
points, and Article 18 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Customs Tariffs, to the extent that it establishes that the size
of fine for unpaid or not duly paid duties shall be established
by the Minister of Finance by taking into account the average
annual fine rate payable the preceding calendar quarter on
Government bonds issued for a term not exceeding one year, as
well as that the Minister of Finance shall increase the above
rate but not more than by 10 points, are not in conflict with
Item 15 of Article 67 and Paragraph 3 of Article 127 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 Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, was considering a civil case. By its ruling, the said
court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the
Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to investigate
whether Article 39 of the Law on Tax Administration, to the
extent that it establishes that the size of fine for unpaid or
not duly paid taxes and the procedure according to which the fine
shall be paid and calculated shall be established by the Minister
of Finance by taking into account the leveraged indicator of the
average fine rate of the last calendar quarter of the Republic of
Lithuania, paid on Government bonds issued for a term for one
year, in litas, as well as that the size of fine shall be
determined by increasing the average fine rate by up to 10
points, and Article 18 of the Law on Customs Tariffs, to the
extent that it establishes that the size of fine for unpaid or
not duly paid duties shall be established by the Minister of
Finance by taking into account the average annual rate of fine
payable the preceding calendar quarter on Government bonds issued
for a term not exceeding one year, as well as that the Minister
of Finance shall increase the above rate but not more than by 10
points, are not in conflict with Item 15 of Article 67 and
Paragraph 3 of Article 127 of the Constitution and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
II
The petition of the petitioner is based on the fact that
under Item 15 of Article 67 and Paragraph 3 of Article 127 of the
Constitution, state taxes and other compulsory payments, the
essential elements thereof, such as the payer of the tax or other
obligatory payment, the taxable object, subjects of tax
relations, sizes (tariffs of the tax), exceptions and
concessions, penalties and fines, must be established by the law.
In the opinion of the petitioner, the Seimas may not delegate its
constitutional powers to establish state taxes and other
compulsory payments, inter alia the fine and its size for unpaid
or not duly paid taxes (duties) to any other institution, thus,
also the Government, while the Government or other institution
may not accept such powers. Meanwhile, according to the
petitioner, the disputed provisions of the Law on Tax
Administration and the Law on Customs Tariffs established the
powers to the Minister of Finance to interfere with such
exceptional competence of the Seimas.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations from Snieguolė
Kaplerienė, senior advisor of the Law Department of the Office of
the Seimas, a representative of the Seimas, the party concerned,
were received, in which it is held that the disputed provisions
of Paragraph 3 of Article 39 of the Law on Tax Administration and
of Article 18 of the Law on Customs Tariffs are not in conflict
with Item 15 of Article 67 and Paragraph 3 of Article 127 of the
Constitution and with the principle of a state under the rule of
law entrenched in the Constitution. The position of the
representative of the Seimas is based on the following arguments.
1. The legal regulation of tax relations is not only the
establishment of taxes by law, but also establishment of a
procedure for implementation of tax laws. Under the Constitution,
it is possible to establish such procedure that would also
include the calculation of the concrete payable tax by
substatutory legal acts. No new taxes were established by the
disputed legal regulation, but the fine, i.e. a measure to ensure
the implementation of tax obligation, thus, the calculation
procedure of the financial consequences (fine) for the incorrect
implementation of the tax obligations established by the Seimas
itself was approved.
2. In the opinion of S. Kaplerienė, the procedure of
calculation of the fine whose compliance of certain elements with
the Constitution is disputed by the petitioner in this
constitutional justice case is clear, as the powers of the
Minister of Finance to calculate the fine are related to defined
criteria, i.e. with the corresponding average annual fine rate of
the last calendar quarter and corresponding percentage points,
and the fluctuation criteria of the size of the fine depend on
the market fluctuations, the country's economic situation, etc.,
i.e. they are objective. Thus, in reality the Minister of Finance
has the powers to establish only the arithmetical values of the
payable fine.
3. While having constitutional powers to pass laws and
establish taxes, the Seimas also has the powers to establish
which state institution must regulate the tax administration
relations. By the disputed provisions of Paragraph 3 of Article
39 of the Law on Tax Administration and Paragraph 3 of Article 18
of the Law on Customs Tariffs the legislator entrenched the right
of the administrator of taxes (customs) to exact the fine and
also entrusted the Minister of Finance to calculate the concrete
size of the fine. Such correction of the size of the fine while
taking account of the market dynamics is necessary.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
judicial consideration, written explanations from V.
Blinkevičiūtė, Minister of Social Security and Labour of the
Republic of Lithuania, acting Minister of Finance, V. Latvienė,
Head of the State Tax Inspectorate under the Ministry of Finance
of the Republic of Lithuania, R. Klevečka, Director General of
the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance of the
Republic of Lithuania and Dr. A. Miškinis, Head of the Department
of Finance and Tax Law of the Faculty of Law of Mykolas Romeris
University were received.
V
1. At the hearing of the Constitutional Court, I.
Jarukaitienė and V. Milušauskas, the representatives of the
Seimas, the party concerned, virtually repeated the arguments set
forth in the written explanations of S. Kaplerienė, the
representative of the Seimas.
2. At the hearing of the Constitutional Court, I.
Jarukaitienė and V. Milušauskas, the representatives of the
Seimas, the party concerned, maintained that even though
different formulas are used in the articles (parts thereof) of
the disputed Law on Tax Administration and Law on Customs
Tariffs, such as "leveraged indicator of the average annual fine
rate" and "average annual rate of fine", the corresponding
provisions were understood and applied as having the same
meaning.
3. At the hearing of the Constitutional Court, I.
Jarukaitienė and V. Milušauskas, the representatives of the
Seimas, the party concerned, also maintained that even though
Paragraph 3 of Article 39 of the Law on Tax Administration
included the formula "the size of fine shall be determined by
increasing the average fine rate by up to 10 points" and
Paragraph 3 of Article 18 of the Law on Customs Tariffs included
the formula "the Minister of Finance shall increase the above
rate but not more than by 10 points", there had been such
practice that the corresponding fine rate was increased by more
than 10 points.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. On 28 June 1995, the Seimas adopted the Law on Tax
Administration which (save the exceptions specified in the
Republic of Lithuania Law "On Coming into Force of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Tax Administration" adopted by the Seimas on
28 June 1995) came into force on 26 July 1995.
2. The Law on Tax Administration (wording of 28 June
1995) (also Paragraph 3 of Article 39 thereof) has been amended
and/or supplemented more than once.
3. On 26 June 2001, the Seimas adopted the Law Amending
and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on Tax
Administration, whose Paragraph 3 of Article 26 replaced
Paragraph 3 of Article 39 (wording of 2 July 1998) of the Law on
Tax Administration.
It is clear from the arguments of the petition of the
petitioner that the Constitutional Court is requested to
investigate whether the legal regulation entrenched in Paragraph
3 (wording of 26 June 2001) of Article 39 of the Law on Tax
Administration is not in conflict with the Constitution. It was
established in the said paragraph:
"The size of fine for unpaid or not duly paid taxes and
the procedure according to which the fine shall be paid and
calculated shall be established by the Minister of Finance by
taking into account the leveraged indicator of the average fine
rate of the last calendar quarter of the Republic of Lithuania,
paid on Government bonds issued for a term of one year, in litas.
The size of fine shall be determined by increasing the average
fine rate by up to 10 points."
4. The petitioner disputes the compliance of Paragraph 3
(wording of 26 June 2001) of Article 39 of the Law on Tax
Administration, to the extent that it established that the size
of fine for unpaid or not duly paid taxes shall be established by
the Minister of Finance by taking into account the leveraged
indicator of the average fine rate of the last calendar quarter
of the Republic of Lithuania, paid on Government bonds issued for
a term of one year, in litas, as well as that the size of fine
shall be determined by increasing the average fine rate by up to
10 points, with the Constitution.
5. On 13 April 2004, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Tax Administration, which (with the exception
specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 166 of this law) came into
force on 1 May 2004 and by which the until then valid Law on Tax
Administration (wording of 28 June 1995 with subsequent
amendments and supplements) was recognised as no longer in force.
6. In Article 99 of the Law on Tax Administration
(wording of 13 April 2004) it is established:
"The size of fine and the procedure according to which
the fine shall be calculated shall be established by the Minister
of Finance by taking into account the leveraged indicator of the
average fine rate of the last calendar quarter of the Republic of
Lithuania, paid on Government bonds issued for a term of one
year, in litas. The size of fine shall be determined by
increasing the average fine rate by 10 percentage points."
7. Article 99 of the Law on Tax Administration (wording
of 13 April 2004) has not been amended or supplemented.
8. On 19 February 1998, the Seimas adopted the Law on
Customs Tariffs, which came into force on 1 July 1998. This law
replaced the former legislative regulation of customs relations.
9. The petitioner requests to investigate whether
Paragraph 3 of Article 18 of the Law on Customs Tariffs (wording
of 19 February 1998) is not in conflict with the Constitution. It
was established in the said paragraph:
"The size of fine for unpaid or not duly paid duties
shall be established by the Minister of Finance by taking into
account the average annual fine rate payable the preceding
calendar quarter on Government bonds issued for a term not
exceeding one year. The Minister of Finance shall increase the
above rate but not more than by 10 points."
10. Even though the Law on Customs Tariffs (wording of 19
February 1998) has been amended and supplemented more than once,
its Article 18 (wording of 19 February 1998) was not amended or
supplemented.
11. On 20 April 2004, the Seimas adopted the Law on the
Recognition of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Customs Tariffs,
Law on Anti-Dumping, the Law on Safeguard (Protection) Measures,
the Law on Countervailing Duties and the Laws Amending them as no
Longer Valid, which came into force on 1 May 2004. By Article 1
of this law, inter alia the Law on Customs Tariffs (wording of 19
February 1998 with subsequent amendments and supplements) was
recognised as no longer valid.
II
1. Taxes, other payments to the budget, and levies shall
be established by the laws of the Republic of Lithuania
(Paragraph 3 of Article 127 of the Constitution). The Seimas
shall establish state taxes and other compulsory payments (Item
15 of Article 67 of the Constitution).
2. While construing the provisions of the Constitution
concerning taxes and other compulsory payments, the
Constitutional Court has formed the corresponding official
constitutional doctrine in its acts. It is to be noted in the
constitutional justice case at issue that, under the
Constitution, taxes, as an obligation, may be established
(introduced) only by the law; the legal regulation must be
established which would ensure the proper tax paying and that the
taxes are paid in time; for that reason, when paying heed to the
Constitution (inter alia the constitutional principles of
justice, proportionality, legal certainty and clarity), various
measures may be chosen such as penalties, fines, fine, etc. Such
essential elements of the tax as the object of the tax, subjects
of tax relations, their rights and duties, sizes (tariffs) of the
tax, payment terms, exceptions and concessions, penalties and
fines must be provided for by the law. The procedure of
implementation of tax laws may also be established by
substatutory acts.
3. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it is also to be noted that while establishing by means of
a law the corresponding coercive measures for failure to
implement tax obligations, inter alia a fine for unpaid or not
duly paid taxes, the legislator has certain discretion. Thus, the
legislator may choose whether to establish absolute sizes of
certain fine for unpaid or not duly paid taxes, or to establish
by means of a law such legal regulation that the sizes of the
established fine for unpaid or not duly paid taxes would depend
on certain indicators and might be subject to change. It needs to
be emphasized that after having chosen such way of legal
regulation, when the sizes of the fine for unpaid or not duly
paid duties depend on certain indicators specified in the law,
and may be subject to change, the legislator must establish by
means of a law not only the subject (state institution, official)
who has the powers to state the existence of the said indicators,
upon which, according to the law, depends such size of fine, and
to establish the sizes of such fine according to these
indicators, but also to specify the criteria in the law, which
must be followed by the said subject when he establishes the said
sizes of the fine.
4. It needs to be noted that the Constitutional Court has
formed the official constitutional doctrine of taxes and other
obligatory payments in inter alia the constitutional justice
cases in which one investigated the constitutionality of legal
acts (parts thereof) which had been passed before 14 August 2004,
when the Constitutional Act of the Republic of Lithuania "On
Membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union",
which, under Article 150 of the Constitution, is a constituent
part of the Constitution, came into force (which was adopted by
the Seimas on 13 July 2004). Upon entry into force of the
Constitutional Act of the Republic of Lithuania "On Membership of
the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union", the official
constitutional doctrine of taxes and other obligatory payments,
which had been formed until then, is developed by taking account
of the said amendment to the Constitution.
III
On the compliance of Paragraph 3 of Article 39 (wording
of 26 June 2001) of the Law on Tax Administration, to the extent
that it established that the Minister of Finance shall establish
the size of fine, by taking into account the leveraged indicator
of the average fine rate of the last calendar quarter of the
Republic of Lithuania, paid on Government bonds issued for a term
of one year, in litas, and to the extent that it established that
the size of fine shall be determined by increasing the average
fine rate by up to 10 points, with Item 15 of Article 67 and
Paragraph 3 of Article 127 of the Constitution and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
1. According to Paragraph 3 of Article 39 (wording of 26
June 2001) of the Law on Tax Administration:
- the Minister of Finance shall establish the size of
fine for not duly paid tax;
- the Minister of Finance shall establish this size by
taking into account the leveraged indicator of the average fine
rate of the last calendar quarter of the Republic of Lithuania,
paid on Government bonds issued for a term of one year, in litas;
- the Minister of Finance shall establish the size of
fine for not duly paid tax by increasing the average fine rate
specified in this paragraph by up to 10 points.
2. While deciding whether Paragraph 3 of Article 39
(wording of 26 June 2001) of the Law on Tax Administration, to
the extent that it established that the Minister of Finance shall
establish the size of fine, by taking into account the leveraged
indicator of the average fine rate of the last calendar quarter
of the Republic of Lithuania, paid on Government bonds issued for
a term of one year, in litas, was not in conflict with the
Constitution, it is to be noted that the leveraged indicator of
the average fine rate of the last calendar quarter of the
Republic of Lithuania, paid on Government bonds issued for a term
of one year, in litas specified in this paragraph is the
indicator which depends on the constantly changing economic
factors, inter alia the financial market. The relation or non-
relation of the size of the fine to such indicator which depends
on the market is a matter of the economic policy of the state.
3. In its ruling of 31 May 2006, the Constitutional Court
held: "the assessment of the content, measures and methods of the
state economic policy <
> (no matter who assesses them), also
with regard to their reasonableness and expediency, even if it
turns out later that there were better alternatives for choosing
its economic policies <
> in itself cannot be the reason to
question the compliance of the legal regulation of the economic
activity conforming to the economic policy <
> with the
legislation of higher power, <
> with the Constitution <
>,
unless the said legal regulation is clearly in conflict with the
general welfare of the Nation, with the interests of society and
the State of Lithuania, or unless it denies the values entrenched
in and defended as well as protected by the Constitution".
4. There are no arguments allowing to state that relating
the sizes of the fine for not duly paid duties with the annual
fine rate (leveraged indicator thereof) of the last calendar
quarter of the Republic of Lithuania, paid on Government bonds
issued, in litas, would in any way deny any values entrenched in
and protected as well as defended by the Constitution.
5. It needs to be noted that under the provision of
Paragraph 3 of Article 39 (wording of 26 June 2001) of the Law on
Tax Administration that the Minister of Finance shall establish
the size of fine, by taking into account the leveraged indicator
of the average fine rate of the last calendar quarter of the
Republic of Lithuania, paid on Government bonds issued for a term
of one year, in litas, the Minister of Finance had powers only to
state the existence of the specified in the law indicator that
objectively appeared in the market, i.e. its numerical
expression.
6. Taking account of the arguments set forth, a
conclusion is to be made that Paragraph 3 of Article 39 (wording
of 26 June 2001) of the Law on Tax Administration, to the extent
that it established that the size of fine for unpaid or not duly
paid taxes shall be established by the Minister of Finance by
taking into account the leveraged indicator of the average fine
rate of the last calendar quarter of the Republic of Lithuania,
paid on Government bonds issued for a term of one year, in litas,
was not in conflict with Item 15 of Article 67 and Paragraph 3 of
Article 127 of the Constitution and with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
7. The compliance of Paragraph 3 of Article 39 (wording
of 26 June 2001) of the Law on Tax Administration, to the extent
that the size of fine shall be determined by increasing the
average fine rate by up to 10 percentage points, with the
Constitution is to be assessed differently.
8. It has been held in this Constitutional Court ruling
that after having chosen such way of legal regulation when the
sizes of fine for unpaid or not duly paid taxes depend on certain
indicators specified in the law and may be subject to change, the
legislator must establish by means of a law not only the subject
(state institution, official) who has the powers to state the
existence of the said indicators, upon which, according to the
law, depends such size of fine and to establish the sizes of such
fine according to these indicators, but also to specify the
criteria in the law, which must be followed by the said subject
when he establishes the said sizes of the fine.
It needs to be noted that neither the Law on Tax
Administration (wording of 26 June 2001 with subsequent
amendments and supplements), nor other laws establish any
criteria that must be followed by the Minister of Finance while
taking into account the leveraged indicator of the average fine
rate of the last calendar quarter of the Republic of Lithuania,
paid on Government bonds issued for a term of one year, in litas,
and establishing the sizes of fine for not duly paid taxes.
9. Thus, the Minister of Finance not only had the powers
to increase the fine rate specified in Paragraph 3 of Article 39
(wording of 26 June 2001) of the Law on Tax Administration while
establishing the size of fine for not duly paid tax, but also the
powers to decide, at his own discretion, but not exceeding the
established 10-point limit, by how many points to increase this
fine rate.
10. Taking account of the arguments set forth, a
conclusion is to be made that Paragraph 3 of Article 39 (wording
of 26 June 2001) of the Law on Tax Administration, to the extent
that it entrenches the powers of the Minister of Finance to
decide, at his own discretion, but not exceeding the established
10-point limit, by how many points to increase this fine rate,
was in conflict with Item 15 of Article 67 and Paragraph 3 of
Article 127 of the Constitution and with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
IV
On the compliance of Paragraph 3 of Article 18 (wording
of 19 February 1998) of the Law on Customs Tariffs with Item 15
of Article 67 and Paragraph 3 of Article 127 of the Constitution
and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule
of law.
1. Under Paragraph 3 of Article 18 (wording of 19
February 1998) of the Law on Customs Tariffs:
- the size of fine for unpaid or not duly paid duties
shall be established by the Minister of Finance;
- the Minister of Finance shall establish this size
taking into account the average annual fine rate payable the
preceding calendar quarter on Government bonds issued for a term
not exceeding one year;
- the Minister of Finance shall establish the size of
fine for unpaid or not duly paid duties by increasing the fine
rate specified in this paragraph, but not more than by 10 points.
2. Thus, in Paragraph 3 of Article 18 (wording of 19
February 1998) of the Law on Customs Tariffs the same principles
were entrenched as in Paragraph 3 of Article 39 (wording of 26
June 2001) of the Law on Tax Administration:
- the established size of the fine was related to the
indicator which is specified in the law and which depends on the
constantly changing economic factors, inter alia the financial
market;
- the Minister of Finance not only had the powers to
increase the fine rate specified in this paragraph while
establishing the size of fine for not duly paid duty, but also
the powers to decide, at his own discretion, by how many points
to increase this fine rate.
3. Taking account of the arguments on the grounds whereof
it has been held in this Constitutional Court ruling that
Paragraph 3 of Article 39 (wording of 26 June 2001) of the Law on
Tax Administration, to the extent that it established that the
size of fine for unpaid or not duly paid taxes shall be
established by the Minister of Finance by taking into account the
leveraged indicator of the average fine rate of the last calendar
quarter of the Republic of Lithuania, paid on Government bonds
issued for a term of one year, in litas, was not in conflict with
Item 15 of Article 67 and Paragraph 3 of Article 127 of the
Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law, a conclusion is to be made that also
Paragraph 3 of Article 18 (wording of 19 February 1998) of the
Law on Customs Tariffs, to the extent that it established that
the size of fine for unpaid or not duly paid duties shall be
established by the Minister of Finance by taking into account the
average annual rate of fine payable the preceding calendar
quarter on Government bonds issued for a term not exceeding one
year was not in conflict with Item 15 of Article 67 and Paragraph
3 with Article 127 of the Constitution and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
Taking account of the arguments on the grounds whereof it
has been held in this Constitutional Court ruling that Paragraph
3 of Article 39 (wording of 26 June 2001) of the Law on Tax
Administration to the extent that it entrenched the powers of the
Minister of Finance to decide, at his own discretion, but not
exceeding the established 10-point limit, by how many points to
increase this fine rate specified in the same paragraph, was in
conflict with Item 15 of Article 67 and Paragraph 3 of Article
127 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of
a state under the rule of law, it is also to be held that also
Paragraph 3 of Article 18 (wording of 19 February 1998) of the
Law on Customs Tariffs, to the extent that it entrenched the
powers of the Minister of Finance to decide, at his own
discretion, but not exceeding the established 10-point limit, by
how many points to increase this fine rate specified in the same
paragraph was in conflict with Item 15 of Article 67 and
Paragraph 3 of Article 127 of the Constitution and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has passed
the following
ruling:
1. To recognise that Paragraph 3 of Article 39 (wording
of 26 June 2001, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 62-
2211) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Tax Administration, to
the extent that it established that the size of fine for unpaid
or not duly paid taxes shall be established by the Minister of
Finance by taking into account the leveraged indicator of the
average fine rate of the last calendar quarter of the Republic of
Lithuania, paid on Government bonds issued for a term of one
year, in litas, was not in conflict with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
2. To recognise that Paragraph 3 of Article 39 (wording
of 26 June 2001, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 62-
2211) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Tax Administration, to
the extent that it entrenched the powers of the Minister of
Finance to decide, at his own discretion, but not exceeding the
established 10-point limit, by how many points to increase this
fine rate, was in conflict with Item 15 of Article 67 and
Paragraph 3 of Article 127 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law.
3. To recognise that Paragraph 3 of Article 18 (wording
of 19 February 1998, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1998, No.
28-727) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Customs Tariffs, to
the extent that it establishes that the size of fine for unpaid
or not duly paid duties shall be established by the Minister of
Finance by taking into account the average annual rate of fine
payable the preceding calendar quarter on Government bonds issued
for a term not exceeding one year was not in conflict with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
4. To recognise that Paragraph 3 of Article 18 (wording
of 19 February 1998, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1998, No.
28-727) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Customs Tariffs, to
the extent that it entrenched the powers of the Minister of
Finance to decide, at his own discretion, but not exceeding the
established 10-point limit, by how many points to increase this
fine rate was in conflict with Item 15 of Article 67 and
Paragraph 3 of Article 127 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law.
This ruling of the Constitutional Court is final and not
subject to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated in the name of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
Toma Birmontienė
Egidijus Kūris
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Ramutė Ruškytė
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis