Case No. 01/05
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE SUBSEQUENT TO THE
PETITION OF THE VILNIUS REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE
COURT, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE
WHETHER THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON THE APPROVAL
OF THE FINANCIAL INDICES OF THE 1998 STATE BUDGET AND
THOSE OF THE BUDGETS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (WORDING OF
1 DECEMBER 1998), THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON
THE APPROVAL OF THE FINANCIAL INDICES OF THE 1999
STATE BUDGET AND THOSE OF THE BUDGETS OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS (WORDINGS OF 3 DECEMBER 1998 AND 14
OCTOBER 1999), THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON THE
APPROVAL OF THE FINANCIAL INDICES OF THE 2000 STATE
BUDGET AND THE BUDGETS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (WORDINGS
OF 23 DECEMBER 1999, 20 APRIL 2000, 13 JULY 2000, AND
7 DECEMBER 2000), THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON
APPROVING THE FINANCIAL INDICATORS OF THE 2001 STATE
BUDGET AND BUDGETS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (WORDING OF
19 DECEMBER 2000) WERE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF A STATE UNDER THE RULE OF
LAW, ALSO WHETHER ITEM 3 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA RESOLUTION NO. 1281 "ON THE
SUBMISSION OF THE DRAFT LAW ON AMENDMENTS TO THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON THE APPROVAL OF THE
FINANCIAL INDICES OF THE 1998 STATE BUDGET AND THOSE
OF THE BUDGETS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO THE SEIMAS OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA" OF 29 OCTOBER 1998 WAS NOT
IN CONFLICT WITH ARTICLE 5, ITEM 4 OF ARTICLE 94,
PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 132 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLE OF A STATE UNDER THE RULE OF LAW
13 November 2007
Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Armanas
Abramavičius, Egidijus Kūris, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zenonas
Namavičius, Ramutė Ruškytė, Vytautas Sinkevičius, Stasys
Stačiokas, Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis,
with the secretary of the hearingDaiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of:
the representative of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, the party concerned, Sigita Krutkevičienė, senior
adviser of the Law Department of the Office of the Seimas,
the representative of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania, the party concerned, who was Gediminas Užubalis,
Deputy Director of the Law Department of the Ministry of Finance
of the Republic of Lithuania,
pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania, on 31 October 2007 at the
public Court hearing heard constitutional justice case No. 01/05
subsequent to the petition (No. 1B-1/2005) of the Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether:
- the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amendment and Supplement
to the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1998
State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments
(adopted by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on 1 December
1998) to the extent that, according to the petitioner, while
reducing the expenditure of the state budget of 1998 it was not
established regarding the way of financing of those
administrators of appropriations who assumed obligations
according to the appropriations provided for by the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
1998 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments
(wording of 2 December 1997), but which were not transferred to
the said administrators, is not in conflict with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 1999 State Budget and Those of the
Budgets of Local Governments (wording of 3 December 1998) to the
extent that, according to the petitioner, the appropriations were
not established in the state budget of 1999, which were provided
for in the preceding state (and municipal) budgets, but which
were not transferred to the administrators of appropriations, is
not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law;
- the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amendments of the Law on
the Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1999 State Budget
and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments (adopted by the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on 14 October 1999) to the
extent that, according to the petitioner, while reducing the
expenditure of the state budget of 1999 it was not established
regarding the way of financing of those administrators of
appropriations who assumed obligations according to the
appropriations provided for by the Republic of Lithuania Law on
the Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1999 State Budget
and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments (wording of 3
December 1998), but which were not transferred to the said
administrators, is not in conflict with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law;
- the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments (wording of 23 December 1999) to the extent
that, according to the petitioner, the appropriations were not
established in the state budget of 2000, which were provided for
in the preceding state (and municipal) budgets, but which were
not transferred to the administrators of appropriations, is not
in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law;
- the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Amendment of
Articles 2 and 10, Appendices 4 and 5 of the Law on the Approval
of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets
of Local Governments and on the Supplement of the Same Law with
Article 15 (adopted by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on
20 April 2000) to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
while reducing the expenditure of the state budget of 2000 it was
not established regarding the way of financing of those
administrators of appropriations who assumed obligations
according to the appropriations provided for by the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments (wording
of 23 December 1999), but which were not transferred to the said
administrators, is not in conflict with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law;
- the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amendment of the Law on
the Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget
and the Budgets of Local Governments (adopted by the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania on 13 July 2000) to the extent that,
according to the petitioner, while reducing the expenditure of
the state budget of 2000 it was not established regarding the way
of financing of those administrators of appropriations who
assumed obligations according to the appropriations provided for
by the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial
Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local
Governments (wording of 23 December 1999), but which were not
transferred to the said administrators, is not in conflict with
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amendment of the Law on
the Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget
and the Budgets of Local Governments (adopted by the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania on 7 December 2000) to the extent that,
according to the petitioner, while reducing the expenditure of
the state budget of 2000 it was not established regarding the way
of financing of those administrators of appropriations who
assumed obligations according to the appropriations provided for
by the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial
Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local
Governments (wording of 23 December 1999), but which were not
transferred to the said administrators, is not in conflict with
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- the Republic of Lithuania Law on Approving the Financial
Indicators of the 2001 State Budget and Budgets of Local
Governments (wording of 19 December 2000) to the extent that,
according to the petitioner, the appropriations were not
established in the state budget of 2001, which were provided for
in the preceding state (and municipal) budgets, but which were
not transferred to the administrators of appropriations, is not
in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law;
- Item 3 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 1281 "On the Submission of the Draft Law on
Amendments of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of
the Financial Indices of the 1998 State Budget and Those of the
Budgets of Local Governments to the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania" of 29 October 1998 is not in conflict with Article 5,
Item 4 of Article 94, Paragraph 2 of Article 132 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. The petitioner, the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court 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:
- the Law on Amendment and Supplement to the Law of 1998 on
the Approval of Financial Indicators of the State Budget and of
Municipal Budgets (adopted by the Seimas on 1 December 1998) to
the extent that, according to the petitioner, while reducing the
expenditure of the state budget of 1998 it was not established
regarding the way of financing of those administrators of
appropriations who assumed obligations according to the
appropriations provided for by the Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 1998 State Budget and Those of the
Budgets of Local Governments (wording of 2 December 1997), but
which were not transferred to the said administrators, is not in
conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law;
- the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
1999 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments
(wording of 3 December 1998) to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, the appropriations provided for in the preceding
state (and municipal) budgets were not established in the state
budget of 1999 and were not transferred to the administrators of
appropriations, is not in conflict with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law;
- the Law on Amendments of the Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 1999 State Budget and Those of the
Budgets of Local Governments (adopted by the Seimas on 14 October
1999) to the extent that, according to the petitioner, while
reducing the expenditure of the state budget of 1999 it was not
established regarding the way of financing of those
administrators of appropriations who assumed obligations
according to the appropriations provided for by the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
1999 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments
(wording of 3 December 1998), but which were not transferred to
the said administrators, is not in conflict with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments (wording
of 23 December 1999) to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, the appropriations provided for in the preceding
state (and municipal) budgets were not established in the state
budget of 2000 and were not transferred to the administrators of
appropriations, is not in conflict with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law;
- Law on the Amendment of Articles 2 and 10, Appendices 4
and 5 of the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments and on the
Supplement of the Same Law with Article 15 (adopted by the Seimas
on 20 April 2000) to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, while reducing the expenditure of the state budget of
2000 it was not established regarding the way of financing of
those administrators of appropriations who assumed obligations
according to the appropriations provided for by the Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and
the Budgets of Local Governments (wording of 23 December 1999),
but which were not transferred to the said administrators, is not
in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law;
- the Law on Amendment of the Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments (adopted by the Seimas on 13 July 2000) to the
extent that, according to the petitioner, while reducing the
expenditure of the state budget of 2000 it was not established
regarding the way of financing of those administrators of
appropriations who assumed obligations according to the
appropriations provided for by the Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments (wording of 23 December 1999), but which were
not transferred to the said administrators, is not in conflict
with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law;
- the Law on Amendment of the Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments (adopted by the Seimas on 7 December 2000) to
the extent that, according to the petitioner, while reducing the
expenditure of the state budget of 2000 it was not established
regarding the way of financing of those administrators of
appropriations who assumed obligations according to the
appropriations provided for by the Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments (wording of 23 December 1999), but which were
not transferred to the said administrators, is not in conflict
with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law;
- the Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2001
State Budget and Budgets of Local Governments (wording of 19
December 2000) to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
the appropriations provided for in the preceding state (and
municipal) budgets were not established in the state budget of
2001 and were not transferred to the administrators of
appropriations, is not in conflict with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law;
- Item 3 of Government Resolution No. 1281 "On the
Submission of the Draft Law on Amendments of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
1998 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments
to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania" of 29 October 1998 is
not in conflict with Article 5, Item 4 of Article 94, Paragraph 2
of Article 132 of the Constitution, and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
II
1. The petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate the compliance
of the disputed laws with the Constitution is grounded on the
fact that, according to the petitioner, the Seimas, while
reducing the expenses of the state budget and of municipal
budgets of the current budget years (1998, 1999, 2000), did not
establish anything regarding the way of financing of those
administrators of appropriations who assumed obligations
according to the appropriations provided for by the laws on the
approval of financial indicators of the state budget and of
municipal budgets of respective budget years, but which were not
transferred to the said administrators, also the Seimas did not
establish any such appropriations while enacting the state budget
and municipal budgets for new budget years. In the opinion of the
petitioner, also the constitutional principle of legal security
was violated, thus, also the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law, since the state did not execute its
obligation to secure the certainty and stability of legal
regulation, to safeguard the rights of legal subjects, also the
acquired rights, to respect legitimate interests and legitimate
expectations.
2. The petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate the compliance
of Item 3 of the Government Resolution No. 1281 "On the
Submission of the Draft Law on Amendments of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
1998 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments
to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania" of 29 October 1998
with the Constitution is grounded (while making inter alia
references to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, its
rulings of 3 June 1999, 21 July 2001, and 14 January 2002) on the
fact that, according to the petitioner, by this item the
Government assigned the Ministry of Finance, until the state
budget of 1998 is specified, to temporarily limit the financing
of the expenses of the IV quarter of 1998, except wages, although
the Government had to execute the budget of the state and of
municipalities according to that purpose and to that extent which
was established in the law on the budget, and had no powers to
change the budget, moreover, the institution authorized by the
Government had no such powers, either. Therefore, the disputed
item may be in conflict with Article 5, Item 4 of Article 94,
Paragraph 2 of Article 132 of the Constitution, and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were received
from the representatives of the Seimas, the party concerned, who
were S. Krutkevičienė and V. Račkauskienė, the adviser of the Law
Department of the Office of the Seimas, and from the
representative of the Government, the party concerned, who was G.
Užubalis, wherein it is stated that the disputed legal regulation
is not in conflict with the Constitution.
1. The position of the representatives of the Seimas, the
party concerned, is grounded (referring to inter alia to the
official constitutional doctrine of revising the budgetary
financing of all institutions which implement state authority and
various areas financed from the budget of the state and of
municipalities upon emerging of a notably severe economic and
financial situation in the state) on the following arguments.
The state budget is the plan of revenue and expenses for a
certain period whereby public funds are redistributed. The
principles of planning the state and municipal budgets require
guaranteeing a stable financing of the functions attributed to
the state or municipalities taking into account the economic
situation of the country. Every year in the draft state budget of
a respective year the appropriations for administrators of
appropriations are established according to the calculations
submitted by them to the Ministry of Finance (how much funds they
will require for the implementation of the programs financed by
the state budget appropriations and for the sustenance of
establishments) and considering the obligations undertaken by
them. It is obvious that, upon an essential worsening of the
economic and financial situation of the state the financial
grounds, the priorities of the budget planning should also
change. In 1998-2000 there was a severe economic situation
(crisis), therefore, a particularly great attention had to be
given to the management of expensesa comprehensive control of
budget expenses, the establishment of priorities of budget
distribution and quality provision of public services at the
lowest cost. Taking account of the essentially worsened economic
and financial situation of the state at that time, the disputed
laws, to the extent that the appropriations were not established
in the preceding state budgets and were not transferred to the
administrators of appropriations and the way of financing was not
established with regard to those administrators of appropriations
who assumed obligations according to the state budgets of the
current years, as well as that the appropriations were not
transferred to those administrators, are not in conflict with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
2. The position of the representatives of the Government,
party concerned, is grounded on the following arguments.
The Government, as an institution of the executive,
executes the state budget; the dispensation of funds from the
account of the treasury is to be attributed to the stage of the
budget execution. The Government acts according to the indicators
approved by the Seimas and does not change the subjects indicated
in the law on the state budget, to whom the funds of the state
budget are allocated, also does not change the established sizes
of appropriations and does not redistribute them. When there is
an economic crisis, the amount of funds provided for in the state
budget cannot be dispensed from the state budget, because the
funds are simply unavailable, thus only part of the expenses
provided for may be financed. Therefore, the financing of part of
the expenses provided for in the state budget is temporarily
suspended in any case, irrespective of the decision of the
Government. In such cases the Government (in the course of the
execution of the state budget and without interfering with the
exclusive competence of the Seimas) may establish the priorities
of work of the cash desk and limit the financing of certain
expenses, without negating the indicators approved by the Seimas
(the subjects to whom the financing of the state budget is
allocated, and the appropriations). The Government, while
assigning to the Ministry of Finance temporarily, until the
budget of the year 1998 is specified, to limit the financing of
the expenses of the IV quarter of 1998, with the exception of
wages, specified the priorities, by following which the Ministry
of Finance had to dispense the funds from the account of the
treasury. Due to the fact that the financing of all expenses was
not possible, such establishment of priorities did not negate and
did not change the appropriations and the subjects established by
the Seimas, to whom the appropriations had to be paid, and only
had an impact on the time of payment of the appropriations. The
Government acted while executing its obligation to ensure that
the budget was executed and seeking to prevent negative financial
consequences to the state.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing written explanations were received
from Assoc. Prof. B. Sudavičius, who works at the Department of
Constitutional and Administrative Law of the Faculty of Law of
Vilnius University, and G. Steponavičienė, Vice-president of the
Lithuanian Free Market Institute.
V
1. At the hearing of the Constitutional Court S.
Krutkevičienė, the representative of the Seimas, the party
concerned, virtually repeated the arguments set forth in her
written explanations and in those of V. Račkauskienė.
2. At the hearing of the Constitutional Court G. Užubalis,
the representative of the Government, the party concerned,
virtually repeated the arguments set forth in his written
explanations.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. On 2 December 1997 the Seimas adopted the Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1998 State Budget and
Those of the Budgets of Local Governments (which took effect on
12 December 1997) Paragraph 1 of Article 1 whereof approved the
revenue of the state budget of LTL 6,885,936 thousand and the
expenses of the state budget of LTL 7,580,936 thousand for the
year 1998.
This law was amended and supplemented by:
- the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Amendment and
Supplement of the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of
the 1998 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local
Governments, which was adopted on 21 May 1998 (and which took
effect on 10 June 1998); in Paragraph 1 (wording of 21 May 1998)
of Article 1 of the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices
of the 1998 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local
Governments, the revenue of LTL 7,009,790 thousand and the
expenses of LTL 7,704,790 thousand of the state budget were
approved;
- the Law on the Amendment and Supplement of the Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1998 State Budget and
Those of the Budgets of Local Governments, which was adopted by
the Seimas on 1 December 1998 (and which took effect on 18
December 1998), which is disputed by the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, in this constitutional
justice case; in Paragraph 1 (wording of 1 December 1998) of
Article 1 of the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of
the 1998 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local
Governments, the revenue of LTL 6,711,962 thousand and the
expenses of LTL 7,406,962 thousand of the state budget for the
year 1998 were approved.
2. On 29 October 1998, the Government adopted Resolution
No. 1281 "On the Submission to the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania the Draft Law on Amendment and Supplement of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial
Indices of the 1998 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of
Local Governments", which is disputed by the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner; by Item 3 thereof it
assigned the Ministry of Finance "to temporarily limit the
financing of the expenses of the IV quarter of 1998, except wages
until the state budget of 1998 is specified".
3. On 3 December 1998, the Seimas adopted the Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1999 State Budget and
Those of the Budgets of Local Governments (which took effect on
30 December 1998), which is disputed by the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, in this constitutional
justice case, in Paragraph 1 of Article 1 whereof the revenue of
the state budget of LTL 7,210,071 thousand and the expenses of
the state budget of LTL 7,210,071 thousand were approved.
This law was amended and/or supplemented by:
- the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Supplement of
Article 11 of the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of
the 1999 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local
Governments, which was adopted by the Seimas on 3 June 1999 (and
which took effect on 16 June 1999);
- the Law on the Amendment of the Law on the Approval of
the Financial Indices of the 1999 State Budget and Those of the
Budgets of Local Governments, which was adopted by the Seimas on
14 October 1999 (and which took effect on 4 November 1999), which
is disputed by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, in this constitutional justice case, by Article 1
whereof the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
1999 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments
(wording of 3 June 1999) was amended and set forth in a new
wording; in Paragraph 1 (wording of 14 October 1999) of Article 1
of the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1999
State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments, the
revenue of LTL 6,760,832 thousand and the expenses of LTL 6,760,
832 thousand of the state budget were approved;
- the Law on the Recognition of Article 16 of the Law on
the Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1999 State Budget
and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments as No Longer Valid,
which was adopted by the Seimas on 23 December 1999 (and which
took effect on 30 December 1999).
4. On 23 December 1999 the Seimas approved the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments (which
took effect on 30 December 1999), which is disputed by the
Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, in
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 whereof the revenue of LTL 6,051,088
thousand and the expenses of LTL 6,851,088 thousand of the state
budget were approved.
This law was amended and supplemented by:
- the Law on the Amendment of Articles 2 and 10, Appendices
4 and 5 of the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of
the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments and on
the Supplement of the Same Law with Article 15, which was adopted
by the Seimas on 20 April 2000 (and which took effect on 5 May
2000), which is disputed by the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioner, in this constitutional justice case;
- the Law on the Amendment of the Law on the Approval of
the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments, which was adopted by the Seimas on 13 July
2000 (and which took effect on 26 July 2000), which is disputed
by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, in
this constitutional justice case; in Paragraph 1 (wording of 13
July 2000) of Article 1 of the Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments (wording of 13 July 2000), the revenue of LTL
6,057,735 thousand and the expenses of LTL 6,857,735 thousand of
the state budget of the year 2000 were approved;
- the Law on the Amendment of the Law on the Approval of
the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments, which was adopted by the Seimas on 7 December
2000 (and which took effect on 20 December 2000), which is
disputed by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, in this constitutional justice case; in Paragraph 1
(wording of 7 December 2000) of Article 1 of the Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and
the Budgets of Local Governments, the revenue of LTL 5,846,865
thousand and the expenses of LTL 6,646,865 thousand of the state
budget of the year 2000 were approved.
5. On 19 December 2000, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2001
State Budget and Budgets of Local Governments (having taken
effect on 29 December 2000), which is disputed by the Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, in this
constitutional justice case, in Article 1 whereof the revenue of
LTL 6428134 thousand and the expenses of LTL 7334134 thousand of
the state budget were approved.
This law was amended and supplemented by:
- the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Amendment of the Law
on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2001 State Budget
and Budgets of Local Governments, which was adopted by the Seimas
on 12 July 2001 (and which took effect on 1 August 2001); in
Article 1 (wording of 12 July 2001) of the Law on Approving the
Financial Indicators of the 2001 State Budget and Budgets of
Local Governments, the revenue of LTL 6,508,456 thousand and
appropriations of LTL 7,414,456 thousand were approved;
- the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Amendment and
Supplement of the Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of
the 2001 State Budget and Budgets of Local Governments, which was
adopted by the Seimas on 11 December 2001 (and which took effect
on 14 December 2001).
6. The compliance (to a certain extent) of some of the laws
disputed in this constitutional justice case, with the
Constitution, has already been disputed in the constitutional
justice cases previously considered by the Constitutional Court.
In this context one is to mention the ruling of 9 July
1999, the decision of 23 November 1999, the ruling of 12 July
2001, and the ruling of 14 January 2002 of the Constitutional
Court:
- in the Constitutional Court Ruling "On the compliance of
Item 4 of Article 10 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1998 Budget of the State
and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments, Item 2 of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 105 'On
the Reorganisation of the Department for Standardisation of
Lithuania Under the Ministry of Public Administration Reforms and
Local Government Affairs' of 27 January 1998, Item 2 of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 117 'On
the Transfer of the Right of the Founder of the Lithuanian
Zoological Garden' of 30 January 1998, and Item 3 of Government
of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 366 'On the Transfer
of Certain Functions of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
to the Ministry of Environmental Protection and on the
Establishment of the Department for Forests and Protected
Territories Under the Ministry of Environmental Protection' of 30
March 1998 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" of
9 July 1999, adopted in the constitutional justice case initiated
by a group of the members of the Seimas, the petitioner, Item 4
(whereby the Government or an institution authorized by it was
entitled, upon redistribution of functions of ministries,
counties, departments, state services, to respectively change the
approved appropriations) of Article 10 of the Law on the Approval
of the Financial Indices of the 1998 Budget of the State and
Those of the Budgets of Local Governments, which was adopted by
the Seimas on 2 December 1997 (which was amended and supplemented
by the Law on the Amendment and Supplement of the Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1998 State Budget and
Those of the Budgets of Local Governments, which was adopted by
the Seimas on 21 May 1998, and the Law on the Amendment and
Supplement of the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of
the 1998 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local
Governments, which was adopted by the Seimas on 1 December 1998),
was recognised as being in conflict with Article 5, Item 4 of
Article 94 and Paragraph 2 of Article 132 of the Constitution;
- the Constitutional Court by its Decision "On the petition
of a group of the members of the Seimas requesting to investigate
whether the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
1999 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments
adopted by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on 3 December
1998 is not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania" of 23 November 1999, dismissed the commenced legal
proceedings in the constitutional justice case subsequent to the
petition of a group of the members of the Seimas, the petitioner,
requesting to investigate the compliance of the Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1999 State Budget and
Those of the Budgets of Local Governments adopted by the Seimas
on 3 December 1998 with the Constitution, upon taking into
consideration that in the constitutional justice case the
disputed legal regulation had been replaced by the Law on the
Amendment of the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of
the 1999 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local
Governments adopted by the Seimas on 14 October 1999;
- the Constitutional Court by its Ruling "On the compliance
of Paragraphs 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, dismissed the commenced legal proceedings in the
constitutional justice case subsequent to inter alia the
petitions of the Vilnius City Court of the First District, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate the compliance of Appendix
6 to the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000
State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments, which was
adopted by the Seimas on 23 December 1999, and Article 9 of the
Law on Amending the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices
of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments,
which was adopted by the Seimas on 13 July 2000, with the
Constitution, having taken into account that the legal relation
subject to regulation by these laws had been terminated on 31
December 2000, i.e. the legal regulation disputed at that
constitutional justice case had been terminated;
- in the Constitutional Court Ruling "On the compliance of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on Approving the Financial
Indicators of the 2001 State Budget and Budgets of Local
Governments (wording of 19 December 2000), the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of Indicators Determining the
Amount and Levelling of Revenues of Local Governments Budgets for
2001, 2002 and 2003 and Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on the State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" of 14 January
2002, adopted at the constitutional justice case initiated by a
group of the members of the Seimas, the petitioner, the Law on
Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2001 State Budget And
Budgets of Local Governments (wording of 19 December 2000) to the
extent that it did not specify allocations for each state higher
school separately was recognised as conflicting with Paragraph 3
of Article 40 of the Constitution and the constitutional
principle of separation of powers, while to the extent that it
did not point out allocations according to the targeted purpose
for the work to be performed in the sphere of land reclamation it
was recognized as being in conflict with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law, and to the extent
that it did not indicate separately the allocations to perform
the state functions transferred to local governments it was
recognized as being in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 120
of the Constitution.
7. It has been held in the jurisprudence of the
Constitutional Court that in general it is not impossible that at
a certain time (particularly at the start of the Constitutional
Court activities) in the Constitutional Court jurisprudence such
official constitutional doctrinal provisions (fragments or
rudiments of the doctrine) also existed, which, if collated, but
assessed regardless of all official constitutional doctrinal
context (particularly, if a more comprehensive, broader official
constitutional doctrine has not been formed with regard to a
respective issue of constitutional legal regulation) and/or
general principles of law, may be treated as competing; if the
text of the Constitution does not change, the said real or
alleged competition of these official constitutional doctrines is
eliminated in the acts of the Constitutional Court adopted in new
constitutional justice cases while construing and developing the
concept of provisions of the Constitution and the official
constitutional doctrinal provisions that have already been
formulated on the grounds of the provisions already formulated;
under certain circumstances such subsequent construction and
development of constitutional provisions may also presuppose
reinterpretation of previously formulated official constitutional
doctrinal provisions, when the official constitutional doctrine
is corrected; such reinterpretation of the concept of the
provisions and the official constitutional doctrinal provisions,
when the official constitutional doctrine is corrected, is an
exclusive competence of the Constitutional Court; it is
prohibited and constitutionally impermissible to reinterpret the
official constitutional doctrine (provisions thereof) in such a
way that it becomes corrected so that the system of values
consolidated in the Constitution is replaced, the compatibility
thereof is negated, the guarantees of protection of the supremacy
of the Constitution in the legal system are reduced, the concept
of the harmonious system of the Constitution as an integral act
is negated, the guarantees of rights and freedoms of a person
consolidated in the Constitution are reduced, the model of
separation of powers consolidated in the Constitution is
replaced. It has also been held that for a certain period of time
the formulation of an official doctrine of acceptability of
petitions at the Constitutional Court had not been finalized in
the Constitutional Court jurisprudence; this doctrine was
formulated "case by case" in two directions: first, such concept
of powers of the Constitutional Court dominated whereby the
Constitutional Court has powers to investigate only the
compliance of valid legal acts of lower power with legal acts of
higher power (inter alia (and, first of all) with the
Constitution) and it does not investigate whether invalid legal
acts or legal acts equated to invalid ones (i.e. legal acts
(parts thereof) which, although formally valid at the time of
consideration thereof at a constitutional justice case, i.e.,
formally, they were not recognized invalid (they were not
cancelled or amended) or the validity thereof was not formally
terminated, could not be applied for the reason that the legal
acts issued thereafter and/or legal acts (parts thereof) of
higher power had to be applied, which regulated respective
relations in a different manner than the disputed legal acts
(parts thereof)) were not in conflict with the Constitution
(another legal act of higher power); second (less frequently),
one was to investigate and decide whether such legal acts (parts
thereof) of lower power which were not valid at the time of
consideration of that constitutional justice case or, although
they were formally valid at the time of their consideration in
respective constitutional justice cases, at that time could not
be applied due to the fact that the legal acts (parts thereof)
subsequently issued and/or those of higher legal power had to be
applied, which regulated respective relations in a different
manner than the disputed legal acts (parts thereof), were not in
conflict with the Constitution (other legal acts of higher
power). It has also been held that the coordination of the two
discussed gradually emerged directions in formulation of the
official constitutional doctrine of acceptability of petitions at
the Constitutional Court was begun upon differentiation of the
subjects specified in Article 106 of the Constitution, who have
the powers to apply to the Constitutional Court: eventually, in
the official constitutional doctrine, the provision was
consolidated that under the circumstances when the Constitutional
Court is applied to by courts, which, in the course of the
administration of justice, face doubts regarding the compliance
of legal acts of lower power with legal acts of higher power,
inter alia (and, first of all) with the Constitution, the
Constitutional Court must consider the constitutional justice
case regardless of whether the disputed law or another legal act
is valid or not, and when the Constitutional Court is applied to
by other subjects specified in Article 106 of the Constitution,
the Constitutional Court, having taken account of the
circumstances of the constitutional justice case under
consideration, may dismiss the commenced legal proceedings (the
case) or not dismiss it (Constitutional Court ruling of 28 March
2006, decision of 8 August 2006).
In this context one is to note that the rulings of the
Constitutional Court of 9 July 1999 and 14 January 2002, whereby
the compliance of the laws on the state budget with the
Constitution was investigated already upon the end of respective
budget years, were adopted in the constitutional justice cases
which were initiated by petitioners, groups of Members of the
Seimas; in the process of law-making one is to take account of
the legal position of the Constitutional Court in those
constitutional justice cases (which have the significance of the
precedent).
8. On the other hand, one is to note that the application
of a court to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting
to investigate the compliance of a legal act with a legal act of
higher power, inter alia with the Constitution, and the
investigation of that compliance are not an end in itself, and
the purpose of the application (as a constitutional institute) of
a court to the Constitutional Court is to ensure administration
of justice.
Therefore, the fact that, as mentioned, under the
circumstances when the Constitutional Court is applied to by
courts which, in the course of administration of justice, face
doubts regarding the compliance of a legal act of lower power
with legal acts of higher power, inter alia (and, first of all)
with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court must consider the
case regardless of whether the disputed law or another legal act
is valid or not, does not imply that the Constitutional Court has
to consider a constitutional justice case even when a respective
legal act is not only invalid (since the compliance of invalid
legal acts with legal acts of higher power may be investigated
and normally is investigated), but also may not be applied at all
(i.e. it may not be applied not only in the case considered by
the respective court that applied to the Constitutional Court
with a respective petition). In the context of the constitutional
justice case at issue one is to note that these circumstances (as
any other circumstances important to the respective case) should
always be assessed when a law on the state budget and on
municipal budgets or any other act intended for a specific budget
period is disputed.
In this context one is to note particularly that a court
which applies to the Constitutional Court with a respective
petition should always have locus standi. For instance, under the
Constitution and the Law on the Constitutional Court, a court has
locus standi to apply to the Constitutional Court with a petition
requesting to investigate whether such a law (part thereof) or
another legal act (part thereof) that should (could) be applied
in the case under consideration at that court, as well as a law
(part thereof) or another legal act (part thereof) which is not
directly intended for the regulation of those relations regarding
which a decision should be adopted in the respective case, but
the fact that this law or another legal act (part thereof), in
the opinion of the court, does not permit administration of
justice in the respective case, is not in conflict with the
Constitution (Constitutional Court ruling of 28 March 2006,
decisions of 22 May, 27 June 2007, and 5 July 2007).
9. One is also to note that, as the Constitutional Court
has held, in itself, no development of the official
constitutional doctrine (inter alia such reinterpretation of the
previously formulated official constitutional doctrinal
provisions, when the official constitutional doctrine is
corrected) forms grounds for the subjects specified in Article
106 of the Constitution to apply to the Constitutional Court anew
with a petition requesting to investigate whether the legal act
(part thereof) is not in conflict with the Constitution (another
legal act of higher power) the compliance whereof with the
Constitution (with another legal act of higher power) has already
been investigated in essence, or to apply with a petition, which
is analogous to a petition submitted previously by some other
subject requesting to investigate whether the legal act (part
thereof) is not in conflict with the Constitution (with another
legal act of higher power), regarding which the Constitutional
Court has already adopted the decision to refuse to consider that
request, or has adopted the decision (ruling) to dismiss the
initiated legal proceedings (the case) (if the respective
petition was accepted at the Constitutional Court and the
preparation of a constitutional justice case for the
Constitutional Court hearing was begun or if the case has already
been considered at the Constitutional Court hearing), thus, it
did not decide the respective issue in essence (Constitutional
Court ruling of 28 March 2006, decision of 8 August 2006).
On the other hand, under Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article
69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, by a decision, the
Constitutional Court shall refuse to consider petitions to
investigate the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution,
if the compliance of the legal act with the Constitution
specified in the petition has already been investigated by the
Constitutional Court and the ruling on this issue adopted by the
Constitutional Court is still in force. The principled provision
is adhered to in the Constitutional Court jurisprudence that none
of the grounds for declining the consideration of the petition of
a petitioner specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court (inter alia the fact that if the
compliance of the legal act with the Constitution specified in
the petition has already been investigated by the Constitutional
Court and the ruling of the Constitutional Court adopted on than
issue is still in force (Item 3)) may be construed as providing
legal preconditions for a court considering a respective case to
apply such a law or another legal act (part thereof), the
compliance of which with the Constitution (another legal act of a
higher power) is doubtful to that court (Constitutional Court
ruling of 28 March 2006, decision of 13 November 2006).
II
1. The petitioner, the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, requests to investigate whether the following is not in
conflict with the Constitution:
- the Law on the Amendment and Supplement to the Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1998 State Budget and
Those of the Budgets of Local Governments (adopted by the Seimas
on 1 December 1998) to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, while reducing the expenditure of the state budget of
1998 it was not established regarding the way of financing of
those administrators of appropriations who assumed obligations
according to the appropriations provided for by the Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1998 State Budget and
Those of the Budgets of Local Governments (wording of 2 December
1997), but which were not transferred to the said administrators,
is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law;
- the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
1999 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments
(wording of 3 December 1998) to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, the appropriations were not established in the state
budget of 1999, which were provided for in the preceding state
(and municipal) budgets, but were not transferred to the
administrators of appropriations, is not in conflict with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law 1999;
- the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
1999 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments
(adopted by the Seimas on 14 October 1999) to the extent that,
according to the petitioner, while reducing the expenditure of
the state budget of 1999 it was not established regarding the way
of financing of those administrators of appropriations who
assumed obligations according to the appropriations provided for
by the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1999
State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments
(wording of 3 December 1998), but which were not transferred to
the said administrators, is not in conflict with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments (wording
of 23 December 1999) to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, the appropriations were not established in the state
budget of 2000, which were provided for in the preceding state
(and municipal) budgets, but were not transferred to the
administrators of appropriations, is not in conflict with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- the Law on the Amendment of Articles 2 and 10, Appendices
4 and 5 of the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of
the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local Governments and on
the Supplement of the Same Law with Article 15 (adopted by the
Seimas on 20 April 2000) to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, while reducing the expenditure of the state budget of
2000 it was not established regarding the way of financing of
those administrators of appropriations who assumed obligations
according to the appropriations provided for by the Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and
the Budgets of Local Governments (wording of 23 December 1999),
but which were not transferred to the said administrators, is not
in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law;
- the Law on Amendment of the Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments (adopted by the Seimas on 13 July 2000) to the
extent that, according to the petitioner, while reducing the
expenditure of the state budget of 2000 it was not established
regarding the way of financing of those administrators of
appropriations who assumed obligations according to the
appropriations provided for by the Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments (wording of 23 December 1999), but which were
not transferred to the said administrators, is not in conflict
with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law;
- the Law on Amendment of the Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments (adopted by the Seimas on 7 December 2000) to
the extent that, according to the petitioner, while reducing the
expenditure of the state budget of 2000 it was not established
regarding the way of financing of those administrators of
appropriations who assumed obligations according to the
appropriations provided for by the Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments (wording of 23 December 1999), but which were
not transferred to the said administrators, is not in conflict
with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law;
- the Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2001
State Budget and Budgets of Local Governments (wording of 19
December 2000) to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
the appropriations were not established in the state budget of
2001, which were provided for in the preceding state (and
municipal) budgets, but which were not transferred to the
administrators of appropriations, is not in conflict with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- Item 3 of the Government Resolution No. 1281 "On the
Submission of the Draft Law on Amendments of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
1998 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments
to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania" of 29 October 1998 is
not in conflict with Article 5, Item 4 of Article 94, Paragraph 2
of Article 132 of the Constitution, and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
2. By some of the laws which are disputed by the Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, the state budget
(and municipal budgets) of respective years (1999, 2000, 2001)
was approved, by other laws the state budget (and municipal
budgets) of respective years (1998, 1999, 2000) was amended.
2.1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, disputes the compliance of the laws whereby the state
budget (and municipal budgets) of respective years (1999, 2000,
2001) was approved, with the Constitution to the extent that,
according to the petitioner, the appropriations were not
established, which were provided for in the preceding state (and
municipal) budgets, but which, however, were not transferred to
the administrators of appropriations, while as for the laws
whereby the state budget (and municipal budgets) of respective
years was amended, the petitioner disputes their compliance with
the Constitution to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
one did not establish the way of financing of those
administrators of appropriations who had assumed obligations
according to the appropriations provided for by the laws on the
approval of financial indicators of the state budget and of
municipal budgets.
One is to hold that, although the extent of the disputed
legal regulation is diversely defined in the petition of the
Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, it is
virtually the same: the compliance of both, the laws whereby the
state budget (and municipal budgets) of the respective years was
approved, and of the laws whereby the state budget (and municipal
budgets) of the respective years was amended, with the
Constitution, is disputed to the extent that the respective laws,
according to the petitioner, did not contain the provisions
whereby the financing should have been provided to those
administrators of appropriations who assumed obligations
according to the appropriations provided for by the laws on the
approval of financial indicators of the state budget and of
municipal budgets of previous years, but which had not been
transferred to the administrators of appropriations.
2.2. Alongside, taking account of inter alia the fact that
by the laws disputed by the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioner, whereby the state budget (and municipal
budgets) of certain years was amended, respective amendments
and/or supplements to the laws on the approval of financial
indicators of the state budget and of municipal budgets were
made, also of the fact that the disputed legal regulation was
intended for the relations which had already been terminated, one
is to state that the petition of the petitioner should be treated
as that requesting to investigate whether the Law on the Approval
of the Financial Indices of the 1998 State Budget and Those of
the Budgets of Local Governments (wording of 1 December 1998 m),
the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1999
State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments
(wordings of 3 December 1998 and 14 October 1999), the Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and
the Budgets of Local Governments (wordings of 23 December 1999,
20 April 2000, 13 July 2000, and 7 December 2000), the Law on
Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2001 State Budget and
Budgets of Local Governments (wording of 19 December 2000) (all
to the extent that, according to the petitioner, no provisions
were consolidated, whereby financing should have been provided to
those administrators of appropriations, who had assumed
obligations according to the appropriations provided for by the
laws on the approval of financial indicators of the state budget
and of municipal budgets of previous years, however, such
appropriations were not transferred to the said administrators)
were not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law, as well as to investigate whether Item 3
of the Government Resolution No. 1281 "On the Submission of the
Draft Law on Amendments of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1998 State Budget and
Those of the Budgets of Local Governments to the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania" of 29 October 1998 was not in conflict
with Article 5, Item 4 of Article 94, Paragraph 2 of Article 132
of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law.
3. The laws specified in the petition (inter alia in the
resolution part) of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court,
the petitioner, are disputed by way of interconnecting the legal
regulation established therein with all administrators of
appropriations who assumed obligations according to the
appropriations provided for by the laws on the approval of
financial indicators of the state budget and of municipal budgets
of previous years, but which were not transferred to the said
administrators, however, it is clear from the petition of the
petitioner (and the administrative case (No. I-7-22/2004 on the
compensation of damages inflicted by unlawful actions of
officials) considered by the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, attached to the petition, in which the decision was
adopted to apply to the Constitutional Court) that the compliance
of the legal regulation established by the respective laws is
doubted for the reason that, according to the petitioner,
provisions were absent in the respective laws whereby the
financing should have been provided to those administrators of
appropriations who, according to contracts, had to render
payments to the joint-stock company (hereinafterJSC) "Lithun",
the claimant in the said case considered by the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court. Therefore, in the assessment of the
position and the legal grounding thereof by the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, one is to take account of
the context in which the petitioner had doubts regarding the
compliance of the disputed legal acts with the Constitution.
4. It is clear from the administrative case considered by
the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court (No. I-7-22/2004 on the
compensation of damages inflicted by unlawful actions of
officials), in which the decision was adopted to apply to the
Constitutional Court, that in 1997-2001 the JSC "Lithun" provided
services of construction and repairs according to contracts and
carried out works for various clients (predominantly financed
from budgets and funds of the state and of the Vilnius City
Municipality), a part whereof were administrators of the
appropriations and that, according to respective contracts, civil
legal relations emerged between the said administrators of
appropriations and the JSC "Lithun". The said administrators of
appropriations delayed their payments to the JSC "Lithun" for the
works carried out, while the latter, according to the JSC
"Lithun", specifically because there were delays by the
administrators of appropriations in rendering payments for the
works carried out, did not transfer to the budget respective
funds comprising the income tax of natural persons. Upon
establishing by the Vilnius County State Tax Inspectorate that
the JSC "Lithun" did not pay LTL 5,223,256.25 in income tax of
natural persons and upon counting the fine of LTL 10,756,699.28
to this company, the JSC "Lithun" contested this decision and
submitted a respective complaint to the Vilnius County State Tax
Inspectorate, and, when the latter did not grant the said
complaint, it applied to the State Tax Inspectorate under the
Ministry of Finance. Upon the decision by the Vilnius County
State Tax Inspectorate on the distraint of a part of assets of
the JSC "Lithun" and on the direction of exaction to the funds
available by the JSC "Lithun" in its bank accounts (whereby,
under non-dispute procedure, respective tax arrears and delays
had to be written off the JSC "Lithun" and its affiliates
"Trinkelė", "Lithun keliai", "Lithun transportas", "Lithun ranga
", "Elpirma", "Vilniaus asfaltbetonis"), those decisions were
also contested by way of submitting respective complaints to the
Commission of Tax Disputes under the Government of the Republic
of Lithuania and to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court;
the JSC "Lithun" requested inter alia to recognize the tax
arrears (including adversative demands) as irredeemable and to
release the JSC "Lithun" from the payment of the delay. The
Vilnius Regional Administrative Court adopted a decision, whereby
the complaint of the JSC "Lithun" was granted in part, however,
the Vilnius County State Tax Inspectorate appealed against this
decision to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, which
amended the said decision of the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court. The part of the petition of the petitioner, the JSC
"Lithun", on the compensation of damages inflicted by illegal
actions of officials was separated as an individual
administrative case. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court,
while considering the case, appointed a complex expertise of
finances, accounts and labour economics, the performance whereof
was assigned to the Forensic Science Centre of Lithuania. The
certificate of expertise inter alia states that in 1998-2000
reduced funds were transferred to the administrators of
appropriations if compared to what was provided for according to
the laws on the state budget of respective years and that the
failure to render payments by the clients financed from state and
municipal budgets to the JSC "Lithun" and its affiliates or the
delay in rendering payments could have an impact on the
inappropriate execution of the liabilities, inter alia the tax
liabilities, by the JSC "Lithun" and its affiliates. By a
specified complaint the JSC "Lithun" requested the award to its
benefit the compensation of LTL 32,545,864.98 in property damages
and that of LTL 5,000,000 in non-property damages to be paid
solidarily by the Republic of Lithuania and the Vilnius City
Municipality, the respondents.
5. One is to note that the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court itself in its petition submitted to the Constitutional
Court did not formulate any direct position regarding the
certificate of the said complex expertise. Neither does the
petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, have any specific indication, which expenses (i.e.
the funds allocated to the administrators of appropriations
according to contracts for rendering of payments to the JSC
"Lithun", let alone the funds allocated to all those
administrators of appropriations, who assumed obligations
according to the appropriations provided for by the laws on the
approval of financial indicators of the state budget and of
municipal budgets of previous years, but which were not
transferred to the said administrators) had to be provided in the
disputed laws and how specifically it had to be consolidated in
those laws.
III
1. It is universally recognized that the state budget is a
plan of the state revenue and expenses (appropriations) for a
specific period, i.e. a financial plan of the state, whereby
public funds are redistributed; respectively, municipal budgets
are plans of revenue and expenses (appropriations) of these
municipalities for a specific period. Under the Constitution (and
in the general legal sense) the state budget is a law, whereby
the state budget, a plan of revenue and expenses (appropriations)
for the budget year, is approved. The period for which state and
municipal budgets are compiled is a budget year, which shall
start on the 1st of January and shall end on the 31st of December
(Article 129 of the Constitution). Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of
the Constitution provides that during the consideration of the
draft budget, the Seimas may increase expenditure provided that
it specifies the financial sources for the said expenditure;
expenditure established by laws may not be reduced as long as the
said laws are not altered. Paragraph 2 of Article 132 of the
Constitution provides that during the budget year the Seimas may
change the budget; it shall be changed according to the same
procedure by which it is drawn up, adopted and approved; as
necessary, the Seimas may approve an additional budget.
2. The Constitutional Court has held that law, in the
course of regulation of social relations, also the relations
connected with the economy of the country, defines the limits of
the content of the state policy, including the economic policy,
establishes the permissible measures and methods of execution of
this policy, however, in itself, it does not negate the autonomy
of the political process, the specificity of formation and
execution of the state policy, including the economic policy, the
independence of the legislature and the executive, as
democratically formed political state powers and institutions
(according to the competence thereof) in the establishment of the
content of the state policy, including the economic policy (inter
alia in choosing its priorities), also that, under the
Constitution, the Seimas, as the legislative state institution,
and the Government, as a state institution of the executive, have
a very broad discretion to form and execute the state economic
policy (each according to its competence) and to respectively
regulate the economic activities by legal acts, certainly,
without violating the Constitution and laws, inter alia without
exceeding the powers to these state institutions established
therein, by heeding the requirements of the proper legal process
stemming from the Constitution, the principles of a state under
the rule of law, separation of powers, responsible governance,
protection of legitimate expectations, legal clarity, legal
certainty, legal security consolidated in the Constitution
(Constitutional Court rulings of 21 May 2006 and 21 December
2006). The Constitutional Court has also held that the assessment
of the content of the state economic policy (inter alia the
priorities), measures and methods (whoever assessed them), also
in the aspect of reasonableness and expediency, even if in the
course of time it becomes clear that better alternatives of the
chosen economic policy existed (thus also that, reasonably, one
is to give a negative assessment to the previously formulated and
executed economic policy in the aspect of reasonableness and
expediency), in itself it may not be a pretext to question the
compliance of the legal regulation of the economic activities
which corresponded the economic policy of that time (as
previously formulated and executed) with legal acts of higher
power, inter alia with the Constitution (also through initiation
of constitutional justice cases in the Constitutional Court),
unless that legal regulation already while establishing it in the
legal acts would clearly be contrary to the wellbeing of the
Nation, the interests of the Lithuanian society and the state,
would clearly negate the values consolidated in, protected and
defended by the Constitution (Constitutional Court rulings of 31
May 2006, 26 September 2006, and 21 December 2006). It was also
held that, moreover, in itself such a pretext cannot be the fact
that, for a certain economic area, differentiated legal
regulation is established in legal acts, which is different from
the legal regulation of other economic areas, nor the fact that
the legal regulation of a certain economic activity, while
reacting to the changes in the market, is changed by the economic
(as well as international) conjuncture, since the preconditions
for differentiated legal regulation of economic activities
(taking account of the importance and nature of the relations
under regulation) arise from the Constitution itself, the
differentiated establishment of legal position of individual
economic entities is to be related with the objectives set forth
by the state in the area of economy, while striving to arrange
the economy of the country respectively, in addition, due to the
specificity, diversity and dynamics of the economic activities
the legal regulation may not be the same all the time
(Constitutional Court rulings of 31 May 2006 and 21 December
2006).
3. Both the Government which has the powers, under the
Constitution, to execute the state budget, and the Seimas which,
under the Constitution, approves the state budget by a law, may
not decide not to react to such essential change of economic and
financial condition of the state, when due to special
circumstances (economic crisis, natural calamity, etc.) a
particularly difficult economic and financial situation occurs in
the state. The Constitutional Court has held that under these
circumstances there may be lack of funds for the execution of
state functions and for the satisfaction of public interests;
under such circumstances respective legal regulation may be
subject to change (Constitutional Court rulings of 28 March 2006
and 22 October 2007). It goes without saying, upon emerging of a
particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the
state there may be difficulties in collecting the revenue
provided for in the law on the state budget (and in municipal
budgets), thus, the required funds are not obtained for financing
respective needs provided for in the law on the state budget (and
municipal budgets). In such cases (but, certainly, not only) the
state budget may be amended (revised) before the end of the
budget year; it was noted that such an option is expressis verbis
provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article 132 of the Constitution.
While revising the state budget (and municipal budgets) the
expenses (appropriations) may be reduced.
One is to note that upon revision of the state budget (and
municipal budgets), upon reduction of expenses (appropriations)
it may also happen so that the state will not transfer the
appropriations previously provided for to those administrators of
appropriations who assumed certain obligations according to the
appropriations provided for in the laws on the approval of
financial indicators of the state budget and of municipal
budgets. Therefore, those administrators of appropriations may
even become indebted to respective entities of economy and other
persons.
4. It is universally known that in 1998 and later there was
a particularly difficult economic-financial situation in
Lithuania, which was predominantly determined by the economic-
financial crisis in Russia, and other external factors, which had
a very negative impact on the economic-financial systems of
various states, including Lithuania, inter alia the fact that an
exceedingly large amount of funds was not collected to the state
budget of 1999, which was required for the financing of
education, healthcare, social maintenance, other needs of society
and the state, for the execution of other state functions. The
Constitutional Court has held that the negative impact of the
particularly difficult economic-financial situation emerging at
the end of 1999 that some time affected the drawing up and
execution of the state budget, is to be assessed as such factual
situation, which could not be neglected by the legislator
(Constitutional Court ruling of 23 August 2005). This provision
formulated by the Constitutional Court is applicable not only to
the year 1999 but also to the year 1998, as well as to 2000-2001;
for a fairly long time the difficult economic-financial crisis
had a negative impact on the drawing up and execution of the
state budget, and on the execution of various financial
obligations by the state.
Thus, under such circumstances the state budget (and
municipal budgets) could be revised, the expenses
(appropriations) could be reduced.
5. Alongside one is to note that state and municipal
institutions should deliver their obligations. If state and
municipal institutions could decide not to deliver their
obligations, even for the reason that the entire state was facing
particularly strong economic and financial difficulties, even
after those difficulties are overcome, it would have to be held
that thus the said institutions are likely to ignore the
legitimate expectations of various persons arising from the
obligations undertaken, that they are likely to violate their
rights. Thus the trust of people in the state and law would be
undermined. The state and municipal institutions may not
arbitrarily refrain from the execution of obligations undertaken
by them. The Constitution does not tolerate it.
In the context of the constitutional justice case one is to
note that although there are no explicit provisions in the
Constitution whereby all respective non-transferred
appropriations (upon transfer whereof to the administrators of
appropriations, the indebtedness of state and municipal
institutions to the entities of economy and other persons should
be cleared) should be provided for namely in the state budget
and/or municipal budgets of the subsequent years, obviously, such
legal regulation (when all such appropriations are provided for
respective administrators of appropriations namely in the state
budget and in municipal budgets of subsequent years) would most
of all comply with the imperative of individual rights and
legitimate expectations arising from the Constitution, the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the
constitutional provisions of striving for a just and harmonious
society, and other provisions of the Constitution.
On the other hand, the obligation of providing for the non-
transferred appropriations in the state budget and/or municipal
budgets of the subsequent years may not be made absolute, since
the economic and financial difficulties, due to which the state
or municipal institutions remained indebted to respective
entities of economy and other persons, perhaps, may not yet be
overborne at that time. Upon arising of a legal dispute whether
the said non-transferred appropriations would not be reasonably
and lawfully provided for namely in the state budget and/or
municipal budgets of the subsequent years, all significant
circumstances should be clarified, also (even in the first place)
the factual circumstances, inter alia the fact whether the
administrators of appropriations themselves did not have a
possibility to render payments to clients from the available
funds.
6. It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional
Court that it is clear from the administrative case considered by
the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, in which the decision
was adopted to apply to the Constitutional Court, that between
the JSC "Lithun" and the administrators of appropriations, to
whom, in 1997-2001, as to clients, this joint-stock company
provided construction and repair services and carried out the
works according to contracts and who delayed the rendering of
payments to the JSC "Lithun" for the works carried out, there
appeared civil legal relations.
7. Every law on the state budget and on municipal budgets
is a law of terminable validity and terminable application. The
financing of administrators of appropriations from the funds of
the state budget and of municipal budgets of respective years is
completed when a respective budget year ends, i.e. on 31 December
of that year. After this date the law on the state budget and on
municipal budgets may not be applied at all, inter aliait is
particularly emphasized in the context of the constitutional
justice case at issueupon passing the said date the transfer of
appropriations of the previous budget year to any administrator
of appropriations is impossible in such a way as if it was made
in the previous budget year, since a new budget year has started.
The regulation of terminable validity and terminable
application was also established in Item 3 of the Government
Resolution No. 1281 "On the Submission of the Draft Law on
Amendments of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of
the Financial Indices of the 1998 State Budget and Those of the
Budgets of Local Governments to the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania" of 29 October 1998, which is disputed in this
constitutional justice case, whereby, as mentioned, the
Government assigned the Ministry of Finance to temporarily limit
financing of expenses, except wages, of the IV quarter of 1998
until the state budget of 1998 is specified.
8. The laws on the state budget and municipal budgets,
other legal acts of terminable validity and terminable
application, issued by the Seimas, the President of the Republic
or the Government, as well as adopted by way of a referendum, are
attributed to the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. The
compliance thereof with the Constitution may be investigated
(and, as said, has been investigated) by the Constitutional
Court.
Alongside, one is to note that, as has been held in this
ruling of the Constitutional Court, the appeal of a court to the
Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to investigate
the compliance of a legal act with a legal act of higher power,
inter alia with the Constitution, and the investigation of that
compliance are not an end in itself, and the purpose of the
application (as a constitutional institute) of a court to the
Constitutional Court is to ensure administration of justice. It
has also been held that even in cases when the Constitutional
Court is applied by courts that, in the course of administration
of justice, have doubts regarding the compliance of a legal act
of lower power with a legal act of higher power, inter alia (and,
first of all) with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court
does not have to investigate the case when a respective legal act
is not only invalid (since the compliance of invalid legal acts
with legal acts of higher power may be investigated and is
usually investigated), but may not be applied at all (i.e. not
only in the case investigated by the respective court that
applied to the Constitutional Court with a respective request),
also that this circumstance should always be assessed when the
law on the state budget and municipal budgets or another legal
act intended for a specific budget period is disputed.
9. It is to be particularly emphasised in the context of
the constitutional justice case at issue that even if, as assumed
by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, it
was established in this constitutional justice case that the
disputed legal regulation was in conflict with the Constitution,
no intervention of the subjects of law-making (respectively, the
Seimas and the Government) into that legal regulation is
possible, since respective legal acts were intended for the
regulation of the relations which had been terminated, therefore,
they no longer exist. Such intervention would be meaningless and
irrational, since, it would mean that respective subjects of law-
making undertake the regulation of the past, consequently, that
they attempt to change the past.
10. One is to hold that it is within the jurisdiction of
the court having the respective case under consideration to
establish by itself, whether any of the said administrators of
appropriations were or still are indebted to the JSC "Lithun",
also whether they have any other liabilities before this joint-
stock company related with these arrears, and upon the
establishment that such arrears or other liabilities existed or
exist, has competence to adopt a respective decision and resolve
the case regarding the arisen dispute in essence. Such disputes
emerged from civil relations are not to be settled in the
Constitutional Court.
Consequently, the court settling the respective dispute may
administer justice by resolving the case on real or alleged
arrears of the state or municipal institutions to the JSC
"Lithun" and/or other liabilities related thereto regardless of
whether the disputed laws on the state budgets and on municipal
budgets of 1998-2001 (and Item 3 of the Government Resolution No.
1281 "On the Submission of the Draft Law on Amendments of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial
Indices of the 1998 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of
Local Governments to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania" of
29 October 1998) will be recognized as being in conflict with the
Constitution or not.
11. If the compliance of the Law of the Approval of
Financial Indicators of the State Budget and of Municipal Budgets
of 1998 (wording of 1 December 1998), of the Law on the Approval
of the Financial Indices of the 1999 State Budget and Those of
the Budgets of Local Governments (wording of 3 December 1998, 14
October 1999), of the Law on the Approval of the Financial
Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of Local
Governments (wording of 23 December 1999, 20 April 2000, 13 July
2000, 7 December 2000), of the Law of the Approval of Financial
Indicators of the State Budget and of Municipal Budgets of 2001
(19 December 2000) (all to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, the provisions were absent, whereby the financing
would be provided to those administrators of appropriations who
assumed obligations according to the appropriations provided for
by the laws on the approval of financial indicators of the state
budget and of municipal budgets of previous years, but which were
not transferred to the said administrators) with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and if
the compliance of Item 3 of the Government Resolution No. 1281
"On the Submission of the Draft Law on Amendments of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indices of the
1998 State Budget and Those of the Budgets of Local Governments
to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania" of 29 October 1998
with the Constitution were investigated in this constitutional
justice case, it would be an end in itself, instead of being such
investigation, which could determine the settling of the
respective dispute in court and administration of justice in the
respective case.
Therefore, one is to hold that the matter of investigation
is absent in this constitutional justice case.
12. Paragraph 2 of Article 80 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, which regulates the refusal by the
Constitutional Court to investigate an inquiry, provides that, if
in the course of the consideration of the inquiry the matter
under consideration ceases to exist, the Constitutional Court
shall dismiss the instituted legal proceedings on the grounds
thereof.
This provision of the Law on the Constitutional Court is
applicable mutatis mutandis to the consideration of petitions
requesting to investigate the compliance of a legal act with the
Constitution (another legal act of higher power) and to adoption
of respective decisions (Constitutional Court rulings of 21
September 2006 and 6 September 2007).
Under Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, in the event that the grounds for refusal
to consider a petition have been established after the
commencement of the investigation of the case during the hearing
of the Constitutional Court, a decision to dismiss the case shall
be adopted.
13. Taking account of the arguments set forth one is to
hold that this constitutional justice case is to be dismissed.
Pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, Articles 1, 19, 22, 53, 55, 69, Paragraph
2 of Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic
of Lithuania has adopted the following
decision:
To dismiss the case subsequent to the petition of the
Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting
to investigate whether the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Approval of the Financial Indices of the 1998 State Budget and
Those of the Budgets of Local Governments (wording of 1 December
1998), the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the
Financial Indices of the 1999 State Budget and Those of the
Budgets of Local Governments (wording of 3 December 1998, 14
October 1999), the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of
the Financial Indices of the 2000 State Budget and the Budgets of
Local Governments (wording of 23 December 1999, 20 April 2000, 13
July 2000, and 7 December 2000), the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2001 State Budget and
Budgets of Local Governments (wording of 19 December 2000) (all
to the extent that, according to the petitioner, the provision
was not consolidated whereby the financing would be provided to
those administrators of appropriations who assumed obligations
according to the appropriations provided for by the laws on the
approval of financial indicators of the state budget and of
municipal budgets of previous years, but which were not
transferred to the said administrators) were not in conflict with
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, as
well as to investigate whether Item 3 of the Government
Resolution No. 1281 "On the Submission of the Draft Law on
Amendments of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of
the Financial Indices of the 1998 State Budget and Those of the
Budgets of Local Governments to the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania" of 29 October 1998 was not in conflict with Article 5,
Item 4 of Article 94, Paragraph 2 of Article 132 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
subject to no appeal.
The decision is promulgated in the name of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
Egidijus Kūris
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Ramutė Ruškytė
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis