Case No. 06/05-08/05
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 8 "THE HEALTH CARE OF
OFFICERS AND SOCIAL GUARANTEES RELATED THERETO"
(WORDING OF 29 APRIL 2003) OF CHAPTER II, INTER ALIA
ARTICLE 40 (WORDING OF 29 APRIL 2003), OF THE
INTERIOR SERVICE STATUTE APPROVED BY THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA LAW ON THE APPROVAL OF THE INTERIOR SERVICE
STATUTE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA, AS WELL AS ON THE COMPLIANCE OF THE
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH PERSONS ARE INSURED BY STATE
FUNDS AND OF COMPENSATION PAYMENT UPON THEIR INJURY
OR DEATH IN THE LINE OF DUTY (WORDING OF 23 DECEMBER
2002), INTER ALIA ITEMS 14, 15 (WORDING OF 23
DECEMBER 2002) THEREOF, APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA NO. 530 "ON
THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH PERSONS ARE INSURED BY
STATE FUNDS AND OF COMPENSATION PAYMENT UPON THEIR
INJURY OR DEATH IN THE LINE OF DUTY" OF 5 DECEMBER
1991 (WORDING OF 23 DECEMBER 2002) WITH ARTICLE 40
(WORDING OF 29 APRIL 2003) OF THE INTERIOR SERVICE
STATUTE APPROVED BY THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON
THE APPROVAL OF THE INTERIOR SERVICE STATUTE
22 November 2007
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, Vytautas Sinkevičius, Stasys
Stačiokas, 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 the Member of the Seimas
Vincė Vaidevutė Margevičienė (representing the Seimas, the party
concerned, in the part of the case subsequent to petition No. 1B-
08/2005 of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner), and Jadvyga Andriuškevičiūtė, senior adviser of the
Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas (representing the
Seimas, the party concerned, in the part of the case subsequent
to petition No. 1B-12/2005 of the Klaipėda Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner),
the representative of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania, the party concerned, who was Arūnas Sodonis, the
Deputy Head of the Law Application Division of the Law Department
of the Ministry of the Interior,
pursuant to Articles 102, 105 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on the Constitutional Court, on 15 November 2007 at the public
Court hearing heard constitutional justice case No. 06/05-08/05
subsequent to:
1) the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate, whether Section
8 "The Health Care of Officers and Social Guarantees Related
Thereto" of Chapter II of the Interior Service Statute approved
by the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Interior
Service Statute, to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
the scope of social guarantees was reduced as well as compulsory
health and life insurance of officers with funds of the state
budget against accidents in the course of execution of their
official duties and insurance benefits, if the officer was
injured in the course of execution of the official duties, were
renounced, is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48,
Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the
protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, and legal
security, also whether Items 14, 15 (wording of 23 December 2002)
of the Conditions under Which Persons are Insured by State Funds
and of Compensation Payment upon Their Injury or Death in the
Line of Duty approved by Resolution of the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania No. 530 "On the Conditions under Which
Persons are Insured by State Funds and of Compensation Payment
upon Their Injury or Death in the Line of Duty" of 5 December
1991 to the extent that it is established that a territorial unit
of the State Social Insurance Fund Board should decide regarding
the payment of the insurance sum to the officers specified in
Item 1.1 of these conditions upon their injury in the course of
execution of their official duties, while the places of
employment of statutory officers specified in Item 1.1 of these
conditions shall disburse insurance sums to these officers, are
not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 40 of the Interior
Service Statute approved by the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Approval of the Interior Service Statute (Petition No. 1B-08/
2005);
2) the petition of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate, whether Article
40 of the Interior Service Statute approved by the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Interior Service Statute is
not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of
Article 48, Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, with the principles of a just civil society and state
under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, are
consolidated in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania, also whether the Conditions under Which Persons are
Insured by State Funds and of Compensation Payment upon Their
Injury or Death in the Line of Duty approved by Resolution of the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 530 "On the
Conditions under Which Persons are Insured by State Funds and of
Compensation Payment upon Their Injury or Death in the Line of
Duty" of 5 December 1991 are not in conflict with Article 40 of
the Interior Service Statute approved by the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Interior Service Statute
(Petition No. 1B-12/2005).
By the Constitutional Court Decision "On Joining of
Petitions into a Single Case" of 13 May 2005, petition No. 1B-
08/2005 (Case No. 06/05) of the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioner, and petition No. 1B-12/2005 (Case No. 08/
05) of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, were joined into a single case and it was given
reference number 06/05-08/05.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, was considering an administrative 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 Section 8 "The Health Care of
Officers and Social Guarantees Related Thereto" of Chapter II of
the Interior Service Statute approved by the Law on the Approval
of the Interior Service Statute (hereinafter also referred to as
the Statute) to the extent that, according to the petitioner, the
scope of social guarantees was reduced as well as compulsory
health and life insurance of officers with the funds of the state
budget against accidents in the course of execution of their
official duties and insurance benefits, if the officer was
injured in the course of execution of official duties, were
renounced, is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48,
Article 52 of the Constitution, the constitutional principles of
a state under the rule of law, the protection of legitimate
expectations, legal certainty, and legal security, also whether
Items 14, 15 (wording of 23 December 2002) of the Conditions
under Which Persons are Insured by State Funds and of
Compensation Payment upon Their Injury or Death in the Line of
Duty (hereinafter also referred to as the Conditions) approved by
Government Resolution No. 530 "On the Conditions under Which
Persons are Insured by State Funds and of Compensation Payment
upon Their Injury or Death in the Line of Duty" of 5 December
1991 (hereinafter also referred to as Government resolution No.
530 of 5 December 1991) to the extent that it is established that
a territorial unit of the State Social Insurance Fund Board
should decide regarding the disbursement of the insurance sums to
the officers specified in Item 1.1 of these conditions upon their
injury in the course of execution of their official duties, while
the places of employment of statutory officers specified in Item
1.1 of these conditions shall disburse to these officers the
insurance sums, are not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article
40 of the Interior Service Statute approved by the Law on the
Approval of the Interior Service Statute (Petition No. 1B-08/
2005);
2. The Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, was considering an administrative 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 40 of the Interior
Service Statute approved by the Law on the Approval of the
Interior Service Statute is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of
Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48, Article 52 of the
Constitution and with the principles of a just civil society and
state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner,
are consolidated in the Preamble to the Constitution, also
whether the Conditions under Which Persons are Insured by State
Funds and of Compensation Payment upon Their Injury or Death in
the Line of Duty approved by Government Resolution No. 530 "On
the Conditions under Which Persons are Insured by State Funds and
of Compensation Payment upon Their Injury or Death in the Line of
Duty" of 5 December 1991 are not in conflict with Article 40 of
the Interior Service Statute approved by the Law on the Approval
of the Interior Service Statute (Petition No. 1B-12/2005).
II
1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, grounds its petition on the following arguments.
1.1. The life and health of officers of the interior
service system, including police officers, are frequently
subjected to risk (criminal liability is provided for murder of
an officer or causing his health disorder because of his service,
resistance to his lawful orders or threatening him, while
administrative liability is provided for the resistance to him,
non-compliance to his lawful order or demand, for insulting his
honour and dignity). These peculiarities of professional
activities of officers were compensated by the social guarantees
provided for in the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Police valid
till 1 May 2003. Article 48 of this law (wording of 9 June 1998)
provided for compulsory health and life insurance of officers
with funds of the state budget against accidents in the course of
execution of their official duties and the type of social support
related therewiththe payment of insurance benefits due to an
injury in the course of execution of their official duties.
The Interior Service Statute was adopted by Article 1 of
the Law on the Approval of the Interior Service Statute adopted
on 29 April 2003, which took effect on 1 May 2003. Section 8 "The
Health Care of Officers and Social Guarantees Related Thereto" of
the Statute does not provide for compulsory health and life
insurance of officers with funds of the state budget against
accidents in the course of execution of their official duties and
the payment of insurance benefits due to an injury in the course
of execution of their official duties.
The interior service is based on the principles of inter
alia equality, compensation of peculiarities of the service,
legitimate expectations and respect to the acquired rights,
permanent execution of general duties by an officer (Paragraph 1
of Article 3 of the Statute (wording of 29 April 2003)). The
principle of compensation of the peculiarities of the interior
service consolidated in Paragraph 7 (wording of 29 April 2003) of
Article 3 of the Statute, whereby respective social guarantees
compensate the service peculiarities of officers (increased risk
to life and health, tightened responsibility, longer work hours
and various limitations related with the service). The principles
of legitimate expectations and the respect to the acquired rights
as consolidated in Paragraph 8 (wording of 29 April 2003) of
Article 3 of the Statute give rise to a presumption that, while
choosing the interior service, persons are certain that the state
will ensure the rights and social guarantees of officers as
established by the state itself, therefore, the right
legitimately acquired by officers to certain social guarantees,
according to this Statute and other laws, should be applied to
the entire period of their service. Article 1 (wording of 29
April 2009) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Implementation of the Law on the Approval of the Interior Service
Statute consolidates the continuation of the service, while
Paragraph 2 (wording of 29 April 2009) of Article 2 thereof
establishes that the social guarantees valid before the coming
into effect of the Law on the Approval of the Interior Service
Statute shall be continued to be applied inasmuch as they are not
in conflict with the Statute.
In the opinion of the petitioner, the said provisions mean
that police officers, having chosen the service in the police in
the course of validity of the Law on the Police, which, as
mentioned, provided for compulsory life and health insurance with
funds of the state budget against accidents in the course of
execution of their official duties and the type of social support
related therewiththe disbursement of insurance benefits due to
an injury in the course of execution of their official dutieshad
grounds to expect that the state will adhere to Paragraph 1 of
Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and to the
constitutional principles of the protection of legitimate
expectations, legal certainty, and legal security and that it
will not reduce their social guarantees. However, the legislator
reduced the scope of social guarantees.
1.2. On the other hand, upon coming into effect of the Law
of the Interior Service Statute on 1 May 2003, as previously, the
relations of compulsory life and health insurance of officers
with funds of the state budget against accidents in the course of
execution of their official duties were regulated by Government
Resolution No. 530 "On the Conditions under Which Persons are
Insured by State Funds and of Compensation Payment upon Their
Injury or Death in the Line of Duty" of 5 December 1991 (with
subsequent amendments and supplements), however, no juridical
basis existed for such legal regulation.
2. The Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, grounds its petition on the following arguments.
Prior to 1 May 2003, when the Law on the Police became no
longer valid and the Interior Service Statute became effective,
the relations of life and health insurance of police officers
with the funds of the state budget against accidents in the
course of execution of their official duties was regulated by
Article 48 (wording of 9 June 1998) of the Law on the Police and
the Conditions under Which Persons are Insured by State Funds and
of Compensation Payment upon Their Injury or Death in the Line of
Duty approved by Government Resolution No. 530 "On the Conditions
under Which Persons are Insured by State Funds and of
Compensation Payment upon Their Injury or Death in the Line of
Duty" of 5 December 1991 (with subsequent amendments and
supplements). These things are not discussed in the Statute.
However, Government resolution No. 530 of 5 December 1991
remained valid, Item 1 (wording of 23 December 2002) whereof
provides for the further provision of this social guarantee to
police officers, although, under Paragraph 2 (wording of 29 April
2003) of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on
the Approval of the Interior Service Statute, the social
guarantees which had been valid before the Law on the Approval of
the Interior Service Statute came into effect shall be further
applied inasmuch as they are not in conflict with the Interior
Service Statute. Therefore, the Statute, in comparison to the Law
on the Police, aggravated the social guarantees of the interior
service officers (inter alia police officers) that had respective
legitimate expectations.
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 J. Andriuškevičiūtė, E. Mušinskis, senior adviser of the Law
Department of the Office of the Seimas (representing the Seimas,
the party concerned, in the part of the case according to
petition No. 1B-08/2005 of the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioner), and the Member of the Seimas V. V.
Margevičienė, wherein it is stated that the disputed provisions
of the Statute are not in conflict with the Constitution, also
written explanations of the representative of the Government, the
party concerned, who was A. Sodonis, wherein it is stated that
the Conditions are not in conflict with Article 40 of the
Interior Service Statute.
1. The position of the representatives of the Seimas, the
party concerned, is grounded on the following arguments.
1.1. According to J. Andriuškevičiūtė, the compensation of
damages emerging due to health disturbance or perishing of an
officer or a cadet is one of the ways of social security in the
event of unemployment due to health disturbance. The obligation
to compensate such damage may be implemented by way of rendering
payment of an established size directly from the state budget on
the conditions and pursuant to the procedure established by the
law or upon insurance of the civil liability by the state. The
way of payment as chosen in Article 40 of the Statute is the
direct indemnity of damages, while the indemnity of damages is
differentiated and individualized, since the size of the
compensation depends on the wages of the officer, which is
analogous to the income subject to insurance as defined in
Paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
State Social Insurance. Under this paragraph, income subject to
insurance is the total income of a person, wherefrom state social
insurance contributions, as well as state social insurance
benefits of sickness, maternity, maternity (paternity),
professional rehabilitation, sickness due to accidents at work
and professional sicknesses, and state social insurance benefits
of unemployment, shall be counted under the procedure stipulated
in this law and must be paid. Such establishment of connection
between the size of indemnity and the wages is analogous to that,
which would be established for health and life insurance of
officers.
If the health and life insurance of officers and servicemen
was consolidated in the Statute, the same event insured against
would be indemnified twice: by way of payment of the compensation
established in Article 40 of the Statute from funds of the
internal service establishment and the insurance benefit through
an insurance company. But the state has no obligation to
indemnify damages due to the same event in several ways and by
exceeding the size of the damages, since that would violate the
balance of private and public interests and would be in conflict
with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of
law and proportionality.
In addition, officers are entitled to pensions of two
types: first, the state pension of officers and servicemen paid
under the Republic of Lithuania Law on the State Pensions of
Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special
Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the
Prosecutor's Office, the Department of Prisons and of the
Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the
Latter and, second, the pension of lost working capacity of
officers and servicemen (invalidity pension of I, II, III group
until 1 July 2005), paid to officers that lost working capacity
due to health disturbance. The same health disturbance entitles
officers and servicemen to the second pension allocated pursuant
to the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance
Pensions, while pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute, in the
event of sickness, accident or nursing, a certificate of working
incapacity is issued to officers and average wages are paid over
that period.
According to J. Andriuškevičiūtė, Article 40 of the Statute
regulates the relations of compensations, while Government
Resolution No. 530 of 5 December 1991 regulates the relations of
payment of insurance with state funds and compensations due to
the injury or death in the line of duty. In her opinion, the
subject of the dispute in the case considered by the Klaipėda
Regional Administrative Court is not regarding the death or
health disturbance of an officer or a cadet, but regarding
insurance with state funds due to the death or health disturbance
of an officer or a cadet, therefore one is to doubt whether an
assessment may be made of the compliance of the disputed legal
regulation established by the Government with Article 40 of the
Statute. Whereas, the consolidation of the health and life
insurance of officers of the interior with the state funds in
Item 1.1 of the Statute interferes with the competence of the
legislator, since such obligation of the state (like the
empowerment to the Government to regulate the conditions and
procedure of such insurance) to insure health and life of
officers of the interior service is established neither in the
Statute nor in other laws.
1.2. E. Mušinskis and the Member of the Seimas V. V.
Margevičienė, stating that the petition of the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, is analogous to the
petition of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, assented to the arguments of J. Andriuškevičiūtė.
2. The position of the representative of the Government,
the party concerned, is grounded on the fact that, according to
him, the articles of the disputed section of the Statute are to
be construed by taking account of Article 3 of the Statute,
whereby the principles of compensation of the peculiarities of
the service, the legitimate expectations and respect to the
acquired rights, and of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on
the Implementation of the Law on the Approval of the Interior
Service Statute, whereby the social guarantees valid before the
coming into effect of the law on approval of the Statute are
further applied inasmuch as they are not in conflict with the
Statute. Thus, it is obvious that the legislator not only did not
prohibit the insurance of police officers against accidents, but
even established its continuation as a social guarantee wherefore
legitimate expectations of officers had emerged. In the opinion
of A. Sodonis, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative
Court of Lithuania (decision of 31 August 2004 in administrative
case No. A8-714-04, ruling of 21 June 2005 in administrative case
No. A-11-726-05) substantiates this position. In addition, upon
adoption of the Law on the Amendment and Supplement of the
Republic of Lithuania Interior Service Statute and the Republic
of Lithuania Law on the Implementation of the Law on the Approval
of the Interior Service Statute adopted by the Seimas on 19 July
2006 that came into effect on 1 November 2006, the textual
expression of the legal regulation of insurance of officers
against accidents was specified, thus, it was confirmed that
officers are insured against accidents.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
judicial consideration written explanations were received from R.
Kairelis, State Secretary of the Ministry of Social Security and
Labour of the Republic of Lithuania, and M. Mikaila, Director of
the Board of the State Social Insurance Fund under the Ministry
of the Social Security and Labour.
V
1. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the representatives
of the Seimas, the party concerned, who were the Member of the
Seimas, V. V. Margevičienė and J. Andriuškevičiūtė, virtually
repeated the arguments set forth in their written explanations
and presented additional explanations.
2. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the representative
of the Government, the party concerned, who was A. Sodonis,
virtually repeated the arguments set forth in his written
explanations and presented additional explanations.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, requests to investigate whether Section 8 "The Health
Care of Officers and Social Guarantees Related Thereto" of
Chapter II of the Interior Service Statute approved by the Law on
the Approval of the Interior Service Statute to the extent that,
according to the petitioner, the scope of social guarantees was
reduced and compulsory health and life insurance of officers with
funds of the state budget against accidents in the course of
execution of their official duties and insurance indemnity, if
the officer was injured in the course of execution of official
duties, were renounced, is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of
Article 48, Article 52 of the Constitution, with the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the
protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, and legal
security, also whether Items 14, 15 (wording of 23 December 2002)
of the Conditions under Which Persons are Insured by State Funds
and of Compensation Payment upon Their Injury or Death in the
Line of Duty approved by Government Resolution No. 530 "On the
Conditions under Which Persons are Insured by State Funds and of
Compensation Payment upon Their Injury or Death in the Line of
Duty" of 5 December 1991 to the extent that it is established
that the territorial unit of the Board of the State Social
Insurance Fund should decide regarding the payment of the
insurance sums to the officers specified in Item 1.1 of these
conditions upon their injury in the course of execution of their
official duties, while the places of employment of the statutory
officers specified in Item 1.1 of these conditions shall disburse
the insurance sums to these officers, are not in conflict with
Paragraph 3 of Article 40 of the Interior Service Statute
approved by the Law on the Approval of the Interior Service
Statute 40 (Petition No. 1B-08/2005);
The Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner,
requests to investigate whether Article 40 of the Interior
Service Statute approved by the Law on the Approval of the
Interior Service Statute is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of
Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48, Article 52 of the
Constitution, and with the principles of a just civil society and
state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner,
are consolidated in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as
whether the Conditions under Which Persons are Insured by State
Funds and of Compensation Payment upon Their Injury or Death in
the Line of Duty approved by Government Resolution No. 530 "On
the Conditions under Which Persons are Insured by State Funds and
of Compensation Payment upon Their Injury or Death in the Line of
Duty" of 5 December 1991 are not in conflict with Article 40 of
the Interior Service Statute approved by the Law on the Approval
of the Interior Service Statute (Petition No. 1B-12/2005).
2. In the resolution parts of their rulings wherewith they
applied to the Constitutional Court, the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court and the Klaipėda Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioners, give no indication as to the compliance
of which wording of provisions of the Statute with the
Constitution they dispute. However, the material of their
petitions and the administrative cases wherein the rulings were
adopted regarding the application to the Constitutional Court,
suggest that the provisions of the Statute are set forth in the
primary wording of 29 April 2003.
The Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner,
in the resolution part of its ruling whereby it applied to the
Constitutional Court, gives no indication as to the compliance of
which wording of provisions of the Conditions with Article 40 of
the Statute it disputes, also in which wording the said article
of the Statute is set forth, however, the material of its
petition and the administrative case wherein the ruling was
adopted regarding the application to the Constitutional Court
suggest that the provisions of the disputed Conditions are set
forth in the wording of 23 December 2002, while Article 40 of the
Statute is set forth in the wording of 29 April 2003.
3. Although the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, requests to investigate whether inter alia the entire
Conditions (wording of 23 December 2002) approved by Government
resolution No. 530 of 5 December 1991 are not in conflict (to the
specified extent) with Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003) of
the Interior Service Statute, however, it is clear from the
arguments of its petition that it doubts only as regards the
compliance of only Items 14, 15 (wording of 23 December 2002) of
the Conditions, but not the compliance of the entire Conditions
with Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the Statute.
4. The material of the petitions and the administrative
cases of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court and the
Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioners, wherein
they adopted their rulings to apply to the Constitutional Court,
suggest that the compliance of Section 8 "The Health Care of
Officers and Social Guarantees Related Thereto" (wording of 29
April 2003) of Chapter II inter alia Article 40 (wording of 29
April 2003) of the Statute with the Constitution and the
compliance of Items 14, 15 of the Conditions (wording of 23
December 2002) with Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the
Statute are disputed in the aspect that respective provisions
regulated the social guarantees of officers of the statutory
establishments of the interior and of the interior service system
of the governance area of the Ministry of the Interior
(hereinafter also referred to as the MI), however, not those of
all officers, but the police officers only, and those only who
were admitted to service prior to 1 May 2003 (i.e. before the
coming into effect of the Law on the Approval of the Interior
Service Statute, while the Law on the Police was still valid).
5. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, disputes the compliance of Section 8 "The Health Care
of Officers and Social Guarantees Related Thereto" (wording of 29
April 2003) of Chapter II of the Statute (to the specified extent
and in the specified aspect) inter alia with the constitutional
principles of a state under the rule of law, the protection of
legitimate expectations, legal certainty, and legal security,
while the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner,
disputes the compliance of Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003)
of the Statute (to the specified extent and in the specified
aspect) with inter alia the principles of a just civil society
and state under the rule of law which, according to the
petitioner, are consolidated in the Preamble to the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court in it acts has stated more than once
that the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law may not be construed as the one consolidated only in the
Preamble to the Constitution, that it may not be identified only
with the striving for an open, just, harmonious civil society and
state under the rule of law declared in the Preamble to the
Constitution; the investigation of the compliance of legal acts
(parts thereof) with the striving for an open, just, harmonious
civil society and state under the rule of law declared in the
Preamble to the Constitution implies the investigation into their
compliance with the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law. It has been stated in the acts of the Constitutional
Court more than once that the protection of legitimate
expectations, legal certainty, and legal security are inseparable
elements of a state under the rule of law. The above requests of
the petitioners (to the specified extent and in the specified
aspect) are to be treated as requests to investigate the
compliance of respective legal regulation with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
II
On the compliance of Section 8 "The Health Care of Officers
and Social Guarantees Related Thereto" (wording of 20 April 2003)
of Chapter II, inter alia Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003)
thereof, of the Interior Service Statute approved by the Law on
the Approval of the Interior Service Statute with Paragraph 1 of
Article 29, Paragraph 1, Article 48, Article 52 of the
Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law.
1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, disputes the compliance of Section 8 "The Health Care
of Officers and Social Guarantees Related Thereto" (wording of 29
April 2003) of Chapter II of the Statute (to the extent that,
according to the petitioner, the scope of social guarantees was
reduced to police officers and compulsory health and life
insurance of officers with funds of the state budget against
accidents in the course of execution of their official duties and
insurance benefits, if the officer was injured in the course of
execution of official duties, were renounced), while the Klaipėda
Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, disputes the
compliance of Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the
Statute with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article
48, Paragraph 52 of the Constitution, and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law. It was mentioned that
the compliance of Section 8 "The Health Care of Officers and
Social Guarantees Related Thereto" (wording of 29 April 2003) of
Chapter II, inter alia Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003), of
the Statute with the Constitution is disputed in the aspect that
the respective provisions regulated the social guarantees of
officers of statutory establishments of the interior and of the
interior service system of the governance area of the MI,
however, not of all officers, but only of the police officers,
and only those who were admitted to service prior to 1 May 2003
(i.e. before the coming into effect of the Law on the Approval of
the Interior Service Statute, when the Law on the Police was
still valid).
2. The doubts of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court
and the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioners,
are grounded on the fact that on 1 May 2003, upon coming into
effect of the Interior Service Statute approved by the Law on the
Approval of the Interior Service Statute, the social guarantees,
the compulsory health and life insurance of officers with funds
of the state budget against accidents in the course of execution
of their official duties and the insurance benefits, if the
officer was injured in the course of execution of official
duties, as previously provided for in the Law on the Police which
lost its validity on 1 May 2003, were no longer there.
3. According to the petitions of the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court and the Klaipėda Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioners, while deciding, whether Section 8 "The
Health Care of Officers and Social Guarantees Related Thereto"
(wording of 29 April 2003) of Chapter II, inter alia Article 40
(wording of 29 April 2003), of the Statute is not in conflict (to
the specified extent and in the specified aspect) with the
Constitution, one is to elucidate the respective legal regulation
established in the Law on the Police, which, as mentioned above,
became no longer valid upon coming into effect of the Interior
Service Statute approved by the Law on the Approval of the
Interior Service Statute.
4. On 11 December 1990, the Supreme Council adopted the Law
on the Police; this law came into effect on the day of its
adoption (pursuant to Item 1 of the Supreme Council Resolution
No. I-852 "On Coming into Effect of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on the Police" of 11 December 1990).
Article 46 of the Law on the Police (wording of 11 December
1990) inter alia established that the state shall guarantee
social care to police officers who lost working capacity in the
course of execution of their official duties (Paragraph 1), also
that the state shall guarantee insurance against accidents to
police officers serving in the police of the Republic of
Lithuania (Paragraph 2). It was established in Article 48
(wording of 11 December 1990) of the above-mentioned law: upon
perishing of a police officer who executed his official duties,
his family shall be disbursed a one-time compensation in the size
of his wages of ten years (120 months), and he shall be buried at
the expense of the state according to the manners of the
residence (Paragraph 1); to a police officer who was injured in
connection with his service in the police, a compensation in the
size of his wages of one to five years (12 to 60 months) shall be
disbursed depending on the degree of the injury (Paragraph 2);
police officers are indemnified for material damages which they
incurred in connection with their service in the police
(Paragraph 3).
5. The Law on the Police (wording of 11 December 1990) was
more than once amended and/or supplemented, however, till 1 May
2003, when this law became no longer valid, the provisions of
Article 46 (wording of 11 December 1990) were not amended or
supplemented, while Article 48 was amended only once by Article 1
of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Amendment of Article 48
of the Law on the Police and on Supplementing It with Article
48-1 adopted by the Seimas on 9 June 1998, which came into effect
on 24 June 1998.
5.1. Article 48 of the Law on the Police (wording of 9 June
1998) inter alia established that compulsory life and health
insurance of police officers with funds of the state budget
against accidents in the course of execution of official duties
shall be provided (Paragraph 1), also that insurance benefits
shall not be disbursed, if the officer perished or was injured
while committing an intentional crime, the cause of perishing or
injury of the officer was intoxication with alcohol, narcotic,
psychotropic or intoxicating substances not connected with
execution of his official duties, the officer committed suicide,
attempted suicide or deliberately injured himself, the perishing
or injury of the officer was caused by driving a vehicle without
the right to drive it or transfer of driving thereof to a person
intoxicated with alcohol, narcotic, psychotropic or intoxicating
substances or to the one having no right to drive it, the health
disorder of the officer or his death was caused by a sickness or
war actions and if this was not connected with the execution of
his official duties (Paragraph 3).
5.2. The new Article 48-1 (wording of 9 June 1998) of the
Law on the Police was designed for the compensations in the event
of perishing or health disorder of a police officer, whereby,
upon perishing of a police officer executing his official duties,
a one-time compensation in the size of his wages of ten years
(120 months) had to be disbursed in equal parts to his spouse,
juvenile children (adoptees) (until they turn 16 years old, while
to those studying in the day-time department of educational
establishments registered under the established procedure, until
they turn 24), to children of the deceased born after his death,
to father (mother) and the persons incapable of working that were
sustained by the deceased or were entitled to his sustenance on
the day of death thereof, while the deceased shall be buried at
the expense of the state (Paragraph 1), and a police officer who
was injured in the course of execution of his official duties and
thereupon experienced a health alteration and his capacity to the
service was reduced, regardless of the insurance benefits, had to
be paid a compensation of the size of his wages from one to five
years (from 12 to 60 months) (Paragraph 2); the disbursement of
compensations was not made under the same circumstances as for
the disbursements of insurance against accidents in the course of
execution of official duties (Paragraph 4).
5.3. One is to note in this context that it is clear from
travaux préparatoires of the Law on the Amendment of Article 48
of the Law on the Police and on Supplementing It with Article
48-1 that one of the purposes of this law (taking account of the
Constitution Court Ruling "On the compliance of Item 4 of the
Conditions under Which Persons are Insured by State Funds and of
Compensation Payment upon Their Injury or Death in the Line of
Duty approved by the 5 December 1991 Government Resolution No.
530 with Article 48 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Police" of the of 3 December 1997) was to correct the structure
of support to be provided to police officers (according to the
grounds of origination of the entitlement to such support) and to
establish the conditions of payment of compensations and
insurance benefits: in case the police officer perished or was
injured in the course of execution of his official duties when
health alterations persisted and his capacity to the service was
reduced, both, the compensations and the insurance benefits had
to be paid, while in other cases of injury of officers only the
insurance benefits had to be paid.
6. Summing up, one is to hold that since the very coming
into effect of the Law on the Police, both compensations to
police officers were established in the event of their perishing
or health disorder, and insurance benefits have been established
according to compulsory health and life insurance with the state
funds against accidents in the course of execution of their
official duties. Prior to 24 June 1998, when the Law on the
Amendment of Article 48 of the Law on the Police and on
Supplementing It with Article 48-1 came into effect, no
distinction was made, when the above-mentioned compensations and
insurance benefits and when only insurance benefits had to be
disbursed: due to the same event insured against both the
insurance benefit and the compensation could be paid. Later, in
the event of perishing or health disorder of an officer, when the
health alterations persisted and his capacity to the service was
reduced, the compensations as well as insurance benefits had to
be disbursed under the compulsory health and life insurance with
funds of the state against accidents in the course of execution
of official duties, while under all other circumstances of injury
of officers only insurance benefits had to be disbursed
(according to the compulsory health and life insurance with funds
of the state against accidents in the course of execution of
official duties).
By the way, the above-mentioned insurance benefits
(regardless of the name thereof) were in no way connected with
any insurance instalments, which, pursuant to the Law on the
Police or other legal acts, would be paid for the above-mentioned
officers to the state budget, to the State Social Insurance Fund
or anywhere else. Such instalments were not paid.
7. One is to emphasize that, since the very day of coming
into effect of the Law on the Police, police officers have had a
reasonable and legitimate expectation that if they, in the course
of execution of official duties, will perish or their health will
be damaged so that health alterations will persist and their
capacity to the service will be reduced, they (in the event of
perishing, their spouses, juvenile children (adoptees) etc.)
pursuant to laws will be provided proper state support
compensating losses. These expectations are protected and
defended by the Constitution that subsequently came into effect.
The above-mentioned support, when one heeds inter alia the
constitutional imperatives of social harmony and justice may
neither turn into a privilege nor be discriminatory: it should
correspond to the possibilities of the society. The establishment
and amendment of the structure of support (inter alia constituent
parts thereof) to be provided to police officers is the
competence of the legislator; in itself the possibility of
changing the structure of this support does not negate the
obligation of the state to provide proper support to police
officers (in the event of their perishing, to their spouses,
children (adoptees) etc.), the life or health whereof was damaged
in the course of execution of their official duties. Therefore,
compensations in the event of perishing or health disorders of
police officers and insurance benefits according to compulsory
life and health insurance with funds of the state budget against
accidents in the course of execution of their official duties
established in the Law on the Police may not be construed as
independent social guarantees in regard that, purportedly, each
of them independently of the other created a reasonable and
legitimate expectation that every time when a police officer in
the course of execution of official duties will perish or his
health will be damaged so that alterations of his health will
persist and his capacity to the service will be reduced, he (in
the event of his perishing, his spouses, children (adoptees)
etc.) will be paid both the compensations and the specified
insurance benefits. Such construction would be constitutionally
groundless, since it would mean that the legislator, upon once
establishing by law a certain structure of the support to be
provided to police officers, may not change such a structure,
consequently, taking into account the needs and possibilities of
society and of the state, that it may not correct and rationalize
the social policy of the state and respectively amend the legal
regulation implementing it, as well as the legal regulation
consolidating certain social guarantees.
In this context one is to mention that the Law on the
Amendment of Article 48 of the Law on the Police and on
Supplementing It with Article 48-1 (wording of 9 June 1998) was
designed precisely for the correction of the structure and
conditions of support to police officers (according to the
grounds of origination of the right to receive such support).
8. Alongside, it is to be noted that the Constitution
protects and defends the acquired rights, therefore, the
correction of the social policy, the reorganization of the system
of social guarantees or of individual social guarantees of the
state should be constitutionally grounded; if in the course of
reorganization of the system of social guarantees or the
structure of individual social guarantees the extent of social
guarantees is reduced, let alone certain social guarantees
disappear, a mechanism of just compensation of incurred losses
should be established to the individuals to whom those social
guarantees were reasonably established, and if those guarantees
have to compensate the losses, which an individual may incur due
to his own activities (inter alia due to his service to the
state), a period should also be provided so that it would be
sufficient to those individuals (being in respective work and
executing respective service according to the preceding legal
regulation entitling to respective social guarantees) to prepare
for respective changes. If the necessity to establish a
respective social guarantee arises from the Constitution, such
social guarantee generally may not be subject to cancellation
prior to the consolidation of the other one instead.
It is also to be noted that the social orientation of the
state consolidated in the Constitution generally obligates the
state to respect the imperative of substantiality of guarantees
of social (material) character, thus obligates to respectively
revise (increase the sizes) of social (material) guarantees once
established (and applied), if economic, social situation changes
so that those established (and applied) guarantees depreciate
considerably, moreover, if they generally become nominal
(herewith making an exception regarding a proportional and
provisional reduction of benefits, whenever necessary for the
protection of other constitutional values) (Constitutional Court
ruling of 22 October 2007).
9. On 29 April 2003 the Seimas adopted the Law on the
Approval of the Interior Service Statute, which came into effect
on 1 May 2003. By Article 1 of this law the Interior Service
Statute was approved, while by Article 2 thereof the Law on the
Police (wording of 11 December 1990 with subsequent amendments
and supplements) was recognized as no longer valid. It is inter
alia established in Article 1 of the Statute (wording of 29 April
2003) that this statute shall establish the principles of the
interior service, the status of officers of the interior system,
as well as social and other guarantees.
In the Statute the system of the interior service was
defined as the entirety of statutory establishments of the
interior and of officers of the interior system under the
governance of the MI and interrelations among them (Paragraph 2
of Article 2), an establishment of the interior (or a statutory
establishment of the interior) was defined as a public legal
person implementing state policy in the area of the public safety
under the governance of the MI, the service of officers whereof
shall be arranged on statutory grounds (Paragraph 3 of Article
2), an officer of the interior service system is defined as a
statutory state servant, the service whereof shall be regulated
by the Statute and/or who has empowerments of public
administration with regard to persons not subordinated to him
(Paragraph 4 of Article 2). It was established that an
establishment of the interior is a central establishment of the
interior (the Police Department under the MI, the State Boarder
Guard Service under the MI, the Fire and Rescue Department under
the MI, the Financial Crime Investigation Service under the MI,
the VIP Protection Department under the MI), the Police Public
Security Division (service) and other establishments of the
interior (territorial, specialized and other establishments
subordinate to the central establishments of the interior), the
interior professional training establishments (Article 4). Also
the principles were consolidated, upon which the interior service
is grounded, inter alia the principles of equal rights,
compensation of the peculiarities of the service, legitimate
expectations and respect to the acquired rights (Paragraph 1 of
Article 3). In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue it is to be mentioned that Paragraph 8 of Article 3 of the
Statute provides that "pursuant to the principle of legitimate
expectations and respect to the acquired rights, it is presumed
that individuals, while choosing the interior service, are
certain that the state will ensure the rights and social
guarantees established by the state itself, therefore, according
to this Statute and other laws, the right legitimately acquired
by officers to certain social guarantees should be applied to the
entire service period".
10. One is to state that social guarantees established in
the Statute are applicable not only to police officers, but also
to other officers of the interior service system in service at
the establishments of the interior.
11. Section 8 "The Health Care of Officers and Social
Guarantees Related Thereto" (wording of 29 April 2003) of Chapter
II of the Statute disputed in this constitutional justice case
contained Articles 39-42. Only Article 40 of the Statute, the
compliance with the Constitution whereof is disputed by the
Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court was directly intended for
the social guarantees in the event of perishing or health
disorder of inter alia police officers executing their official
duties. Other articles of Section 8 "Health Care of Officers and
Social Guarantees Related Thereto" (wording of 29 April 2003) of
Chapter II of the Statute were either not related or only
indirectly related thereto.
11.1. Article 40 of the Statute "Compensations in the Event
of Perishing or Health Disorder of an Officer or a Cadet"
(wording of 29 April 2003) established the following:
"1. Upon perishing of an officer who executed his official
duties, also in cases when his death is related with his service,
within one year after the death of the officer a onetime
compensation in the size of 120 monthly wages shall be paid in
equal parts to his family: to children (to adoptees, also to
children who were born after his death) until they turn 18 years
old, also to children (to adoptees) who study in day-time
departments of educational establishments registered according to
the established procedure until they turn 24 years old, to a
spouse, to father or mother, and to the persons incapable of
working that were sustained by the officer or were entitled to
his sustenance.
2. A perished officer or a cadet shall be buried with funds
of the state and his kin shall be paid a pecuniary compensation
in the size of 40 MSL (minimum subsistence level) to cover the
expenses of the funeral. Under the procedure stipulated by laws
the state shall reimburse the expenses of transportation to
Lithuania of the remains of an officer or a cadet who perished
while executing his official duties or in the course of
professional training abroad. The inventory of burial expenses to
be reimbursed by the sate shall be established by the Government
or an institution authorized by it.
3. A compensation in the size of wages from one to five
years (from 12 to 60 months) shall be paid to an officer who was
injured or got a serious health disorder in the course of
execution of his official duties or due to his service. The
following compensations shall be established:
1) in the size of wages of 60 months to invalids of the I
group due to injury;
2) in the size of wages of 48 months to invalids of the II
group due to injury;
3) in the size of wages of 36 months to invalids of the III
group due to injury;
4) in the size of wages of 24 months in the event of a
serious health disorder;
5) in the size of wages of 18 months in the event of an
average health disorder;
6) in the size of wages of 12 months in the event of a
light health disorder.
4. In the event of perishing or injury of a cadet of
professional educational institutions of the interior during
professional or introductory training compensations shall be paid
under the conditions and pursuant to the procedure established in
Paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article, excluding that the size of
the compensation shall be calculated according to minimum monthly
wages established by the Government at the time of the event.
5. Whether perishing or health disorder of an officer is
related with the execution of official duties or with the
service, and of a cadet with professional or introductory
training, shall be established under the procedure stipulated by
the Minister of the Interior.
6. Compensations established in this Article shall not be
paid, if:
1) an officer or a cadet perished or was injured while
committing an intentional crime or a misdemeanour;
2) the cause of perishing or injury of the officer was
intoxication with alcohol, narcotic, psychotropic or other
intoxicating materials not connected with execution of his
official duties, while the cause of perishing or injury of the
cadet was not related with his professional or introductory
training;
3) an officer or a cadet committed suicide, attempted
suicide or deliberately injured himself;
4) an officer or a cadet perished or was injured during a
car accident if he was driving a vehicle without the right to
drive it or transferred the driving thereof to a person
intoxicated with alcohol, narcotic, psychotropic or other
intoxicating materials or to the one having no right to drive it;
5) the health disorder or death of an officer or a cadet
was caused by a sickness and this was not connected with the
execution of official duties or professional or introductory
training;
6) the health disorder or death of an officer or a cadet
was a deliberate violation of safety rules not related with the
official necessity.
7. If an officer or a cadet perished or was injured due to
his own carelessness, taking account of the extent of his guilt,
the compensation may be reduced or not disbursed. Disputes
regarding the refusal to disburse compensation shall be settled
under the procedure stipulated by laws.
8. The degree of severity of the health disorder of an
officer or a cadet shall be established by the Central Medical
Expert Commission pursuant to the procedure stipulated by the
Government."
11.2. In Article 39 "The Health Care of Officers" (wording
of 29 April 2003) of the Statute inter alia the following is
established: sources of remuneration of health care services for
officers (Paragraph 1); establishments providing primary,
secondary and tertiary health care services (Paragraphs 2, 3);
establishments performing periodic compulsory medical
examinations of officers, the establishment of performance
procedure thereof (Paragraph 4); procedure of financing of
preventive medical examinations, vaccinations and health
improvement services of officers (Paragraph 5); procedure for the
performance of health care of officers and service environment
thereof and state public health control (Paragraph 6).
In Article 41 "Provisional Incapacity for Work of Officers
and the Procedure for Reimbursement Thereof" of the Statute
(wording of 29 April 2003) the following is established:
procedure for issuance of certificates of incapacity for work and
pregnancy as well as delivery leave (Paragraph 1); duration of
provisional incapacity for work due to sickness, accident or
nursing of officers, duration of pregnancy and delivery leave of
female officers, reimbursement conditions, reimbursement,
procedure of issuance of a provisional certificate of incapacity
for work, inter alia if there are signs of invalidity (Paragraphs
2, 3, 4).
Article 42 "The Reimbursement of Expenses of Medical
Rehabilitation, Recreational and Anti-Relapse Treatment" (wording
of 29 April 2003) of the Statute establishes reimbursement
procedure and sources for medical rehabilitation, preventive
medical and psychological rehabilitation, recreation, anti-
relapse treatment.
12. One is to state that Article 40 "Compensations in the
Event of Death or Health Disorder of an Officer or a Cadet"
(wording of 29 April 2003) of the Statute consolidated the social
guarantee, the disbursement of compensations in the event of
death or health disorder of an officer or a cadet, however,
neither this article, nor the Statute in general (wording of 29
April 2003) (hence also Section 8 "Health Care of Officers and
Social Guarantees Related Thereto" (wording of 29 April 2003) of
Chapter II thereof) contained provisions, providing for
compulsory life and health insurance of officers with funds of
the state budget against accidents in the course of execution of
official duties.
However, as it was mentioned above, Paragraph 8 of Article
3 of the Statute establishes that "pursuant to the principle of
legitimate expectations and respect to the acquired rights, it is
presumed that individuals, while choosing the interior service,
are certain that the state will ensure the rights and social
guarantees established by the state itself, therefore, according
to this Statute and other laws, the right legitimately acquired
by officers to certain social guarantees should be applied to the
entire service period".
13. On the very same day (29 April 2003), when the Law on
the Approval of the Interior Service Statute was adopted, the
Seimas also adopted the Law on the Implementation of the Law on
the Approval of the Interior Service Statute, which also came
into effect on 1 May 2003.
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 "The Continuation of the Service"
of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on the Approval of
the Interior Service Statute establishes that the officers who
had been in the service in the system of the interior or in the
police faculties of the Law University of Lithuania, before the
Law on the Approval of the Interior Service Statute came into
effect, shall be regarded, pursuant to the procedure established
in the Statute, as officers of the system of the interior,
serving according to the procedure established by the Law on the
Approval of the Interior Service Statute, while in Paragraph 2 of
Article 2 "Implementation of Some Social Guarantees" it is
established that the social guarantees which had been valid
before the Law on the Approval of the Interior Service Statute
came into effect shall be further applied inasmuch as they are
not in conflict with the Statute.
The Law on the Implementation of the Law on the Approval of
the Interior Service Statute was amended and supplemented by the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Supplement of Article 2 of the
Law on the Implementation of the Law on the Approval of the
Interior Service Statute adopted by the Seimas on 27 November
2003, which came into effect on 17 December 2003, as well as by
the Law on the Amendment and Supplement of the Republic of
Lithuania Interior Service Statute and the Republic of Lithuania
Law on the Implementation of the Law on the Approval of the
Interior Service Statute adopted on 19 July 2006, which came into
effect on 1 November 2006, however, the specified provisions of
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 and Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law
on the Implementation of the Law on the Approval of the Interior
Service Statute were not amended or supplemented.
14. Stability is not characteristic of the legal regulation
established in the Statute. The Statute (wording of 29 April
2003) was more than once amended (or) supplemented (six times in
2004, once in 2005, six times in 2006, once in 2007).
In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue
significance is attached to the Law on the Amendment and
Supplement of the Republic of Lithuania Interior Service Statute
and the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Implementation of the
Law on the Approval of the Interior Service Statute adopted by
the Seimas on 19 July 2006 which came into effect on 1 November
2006 (save the specified exception).
14.1. By Article 15 of Section I of the Law on the
Amendment and Supplement of the Interior Service Statute and the
Law on the Implementation of the Law on the Approval of the
Interior Service Statute, Article 40 of the Statute was amended
and set forth in the new wording (wording of 29 April 2003) (its
title remained the same "Compensations in the Event of Death or
Health Disturbance of an Officer or a Cadet").
Article 40 of the Statute "Compensations in the Event of
Death or Health Disturbance of an Officer or a Cadet" (wording of
19 July 2006) establishes the following:
"1. Upon perishing of an officer who executed his official
duties, if the execution of official duties was related with
increased danger or increased risk to the life or health of the
officer, also in cases when the cause of the death of the officer
was related with the execution of his official duties, if the
execution of official duties was related with increased danger or
increased risk to the life or health of the officer, also in
cases when the officer is killed due to the execution of official
duties or the status of the officer, regardless of the insurance
benefits disbursed to his family: to children (to adoptees, also
to children who were born after the death of an officer) until
they turn 18 years old, also to children (to adoptees) who study
in day-time departments of educational establishments registered
according to the established procedure until they turn 24 years
old, to the spouse, to the cohabitant (partner), to father or
mother, and to the persons incapable of working who were
sustained by the officer or were entitled to his sustenance,
within one year after the death of the officer a onetime
compensation in the size of 120 monthly wages shall be paid in
equal parts.
2. A perished officer or a cadet shall be buried with funds
of the state and his kin are paid a pecuniary compensation in the
size of 40 minimum subsistence levels to cover the expenses of
the funeral. Under the procedure stipulated by legal acts the
state shall reimburse the expenses of transportation to Lithuania
of the remains of an officer or a cadet who perished while
executing his official duties or in the course of professional
training abroad. The inventory of burial expenses to be
reimbursed by the sate shall be established by the Government or
an institution authorized by it.
3. A compensation in the size of the average wages from one
to five years (from 12 to 60 months) shall be paid to an officer
who was injured or got health disorder in the course of execution
of his official duties, if the execution of official duties was
related with increased danger or increased risk to the life or
health of the officer, or when his injury, self-inflicted injury
or health disorder is related with the execution of his official
duties, if the execution of official duties was related with
increased danger or increased risk to the life or health of the
officer, or when his health disorder was caused by the execution
of official duties or the status of the officer, a compensation
in the size of average wages from one to five years (from 12 to
60 months) shall be paid. The following compensations shall be
established:
1) in the size of average wages of 60 months to those who
lost 75-100 per cent of working capacity due to injury or self-
inflicted injury;
2) in the size of average wages of 48 months to those who
lost 60-70 per cent of working capacity due to injury or self-
inflicted injury;
3) in the size of average wages of 36 months to those who
lost 45-55 per cent of working capacity due to injury or self-
inflicted injury;
4) in the size of average wages of 30 months to those who
lost up to 40 per cent of working capacity due to injury or self-
inflicted injury and thereupon were recognized unfit to the
interior service;
5) in the size of average wages of 24 months in the event
of a serious health disorder;
6) in the size of average wages of 18 months in the event
of an average health disorder;
7) in the size of average wages of 12 months in the event
of a light health disorder.
4. In the event of the death, injury, self-inflicted injury
or health disorder of a cadet inflicted during professional or
introductory training compensations shall be disbursed under the
conditions and procedure established in Paragraphs 1 and 3 of
this Article, excluding that the size of compensations shall be
estimated according to minimum monthly wages established by
Government at the timing of the event.
5. Whether the death, injury, self-inflicted injury or
health disorder of an officer is related with the execution of
official duties or the status of an officer, and with
professional or introductory training of a cadet, also whether
the execution of official duties, professional or introductory
training is related with an increased danger or an increased risk
to the life or health of an officer or a cadet, shall be
established pursuant to the procedure established by the Minister
of the Interior.
6. The compensations established under this article shall
not be disbursed, if:
1) an officer or a cadet perished, injured himself, was
injured or his health was disordered while committing an
intentional crime or an intentional misdemeanour;
2) the death, injury, self-injury or health disorder of an
officer was caused by intoxication with alcohol, drugs,
psychotropic or other intoxicating substances unrelated with the
execution of official services, while the death, injury, self-
injury or health disorder of a cadet was caused by intoxication
with alcohol, narcotic, psychotropic or other intoxicating
substances unrelated with his professional or introductory
training;
3) an officer or a cadet committed suicide, attempted
suicide or self-inflicted injury;
4) an officer or a cadet perished, was self-injured,
injured or his health was disordered during a traffic accident,
if this officer or the cadet was driving a vehicle without the
right to drive it or transferred the driving thereof to a person
intoxicated with alcohol, narcotic, psychotropic or toxic and
other intoxicating substances or to the one having no right to
drive it;
5) the health disorder or death of an officer or a cadet
was caused by sickness, which was unrelated with the execution of
official duties or professional or introductory training;
6) health disorder or death of an officer or a cadet was
caused by a deliberate violation of safety rules unrelated with
official necessity.
7. Disputes regarding the refusal to disburse compensation
shall be considered pursuant to the procedures established by
legal acts.
8. The degree of severity of health disorder of an officer
or a cadet shall be established by the Central Medical Expert
Commission pursuant to the List of Heavy, Average and Light
Injuries, Traumas and Other Health Disorders of Officers or
Cadets of the Interior Service System approved by the Government
under the procedure stipulated by the Government."
14.2. By Article 16 of Section I of the Law on the
Amendment and Supplement of the Interior Service Statute and the
Law on the Implementation of the Law on the Approval of the
Interior Service Statute, Paragraph 5 (wording of 29 April 2003)
of Article 41 of the Statute was amended and set forth in a new
wording, replacing the word "invalidity" with the word
"disability", however this did not change the essence of the
legal regulation.
14.3. By Article 21 of Section I of the Law on the
Amendment and Supplement of the Interior Service Statute and of
the Law on the Implementation of the Law on the Interior Service
Statute Article 49 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the Statute was
amended and set forth in a new wording (the title of this article
was amended too).
Until then Article 49 "Social Insurance and Pensions of
Officers" (wording of 29 April 2003) of the Statute established
that officers shall be insured in compulsory manner with state
social pensions insurance pursuant to the procedure established
by the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions (Paragraph 1) and
that officers shall be entitled to receive state pensions of
officers pursuant to the law regulating the procedure for
allocation and disbursement of state pensions to officers and to
servicemen (Paragraph 2). Whereas Article 49 "The Insurance of
Officers and Cadets and Pensions of Officers" (wording of 19 July
2006) of the Statute establishes the following:
"1. For the entire period of the service the health and
life of officers shall be insured in a compulsory manner with the
state budget funds against accidents while in service, against
accidents related with the service, against accidents on the way
to and from the service. The sum of health and life insurance of
officers shall be equal to the wages disbursed on the month of
the event insured against, multiplied by 12, and may not be
higher than 48 minimum monthly wages established by the
Government.
2. For the entire period of professional and introductory
training the health and life of cadets shall be insured in a
compulsory manner with the state budget funds against accidents
during professional or introductory training. The sum of health
and life insurance of a cadet shall equal to the monthly minimum
wages multiplied by 12 on the month of the event insured against
established by the Government.
3. The procedure of admission of health and life insurance
of officers and cadets, of recognition of events insured against,
of establishment of the size of benefits and the disbursement
thereof shall be established by the Government. The procedure of
investigation and recording of accidents while in service, of
accidents related with the service, of accidents on the way to
and from the service, as well as of accidents during professional
and introductory training shall be established by the Minister of
the Interior.
4. Insurance benefits shall not be disbursed in the cases
established in Paragraph 6 of Article 40 of the Statute.
5. Under the procedure stipulated by the Law on State
Social Insurance Pensions officers shall be insured in a
compulsory manner with the insurance of state social insurance
pensions.
6. Officers shall be entitled to receive the state pension
of officers pursuant to the law which regulates the procedure of
allocation and disbursement of state pensions of officers and
servicemen.
7. Under the procedure established by the Law on the Social
Insurance of Unemployment, officers shall be insured in a
compulsory manner with the social insurance of unemployment."
15. One is to state that upon the above-mentioned
amendments of the Statute (wording of 19 July 2006, also with
subsequent amendments and supplement) such legal regulation is
established, which in the aspect, whereby the compliance with the
Constitution of Section 8 "The Health Care of Officers and Social
Guarantees Related Thereto" (wording of 29 April 2003) (to the
specified extent) of Chapter II, inter alia Article 40 (wording
of 29 April 2003), of the Statute, is disputed by the Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court and the Klaipėda Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioners, is analogous to that,
which was established in Article 48 (wording of 9 June 1998) and
Article 48-1 (wording of 9 June 1998) of the Law on the Police,
inter alia the compulsory life and health insurance of officers
for the entire period of their service with funds of the state
budget against accidents while in the service, against accidents
related with the service against accidents on the way to and from
the service is explicitly consolidated; the difference lies only
in the disbursement conditions of compensations in the event of
the death or health disturbance of an officer or a cadet. Under
Articles 49, 40 of the Statute (wording of 19 July 2006),
insurance benefits shall be disbursed in all cases when an
officer perishes or is injured during service (save events not
insured against), and compensations shall only be disbursed when
the officer perishes or he is injured (injures himself) in the
course of execution of official duties, if the execution of
official duties is related with increased danger to life and
health of officers, or he is killed, his health is disturbed due
to execution of official duties or due to the status of the
officer. Such interrelation of the social guarantees is also
obvious from the explanatory note to the Draft Law on the
Amendment and Supplement of the Interior Service Statute and the
Law on the Implementation of the Law on the Approval of the
Interior Service Statute.
16. In deciding, subsequent to the petitions of the
petitioner, whether Section 8 "The Health Care of Officers and
Social Guarantees Related Thereto" (wording of 29 April 2003) (to
the specified extent and in the specified aspect) of Chapter II,
inter alia Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003), of the Statute
was not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1
of Article 48, Article 52 of the Constitution, and the principle
of a state under the rule of law, one is to note that, as
mentioned above:
- Paragraph 8 of Article 3 of the Statute establishes that
"pursuant to the principle of legitimate expectations and respect
of the acquired rights, it is presumed that individuals, while
choosing the interior service, are certain that the state will
ensure the rights and social guarantees established by the state
itself, therefore, according to this Statute and other laws, the
right legitimately acquired by officers to certain social
guaranties should be applied to the entire service period";
- under Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on the
Implementation of the Law on the Approval of the Interior Service
Statute, the social guarantees which were valid before the coming
into effect of the Law on the Approval of the Interior Service
Statute shall be further applied inasmuch as they are not in
conflict with the Interior Service Statute.
Therefore one is to hold that upon coming into effect of
the Law on the Approval of the Interior Service Statute police
officers who were admitted to service before 1 May 2003 had those
social guarantees maintained which they had possessed
theretofore, as established by Articles 48 and 48-1 (wording of 9
June 1998) by the Law on the Police, i.e. the compensations in
the event of their perishing or health disorder and compulsory
life and health insurance of police officers with funds of the
state budget against accidents in the course of execution of
official duties.
17. It needs to be mentioned that also the Supreme
Administrative Court interprets the legal regulation established
in the Statute and in the Law on Implementation of the Law on the
Approval of the Interior Service Statute precisely in this the
way (decision of 31 August 2004 in administrative case No. A8-
714-04, ruling of 21 June 2005 in administrative case No. A-11-
726-05).
18. Having held the above, one is also to hold that the
legal regulation approved in disputed Section 8 "The Health Care
of Officers and Social Guarantees Related Thereto" (wording of 29
April 2003) of Chapter II, inter alia Article 40 (wording of 29
April 2003), of the Statute did not negate the right to work, the
right to social support, and the legitimate expectations of the
police officers admitted to service before 1 May 2003, nor the
principle of equal rights of persons, as consolidated in the
Constitution, in their regard.
19. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Section 8 "The Health Care of Officers and Social
Guarantees Related Thereto" (wording of 29 April 2003) of Chapter
II, inter alia Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the
Statute, to the extent and in the aspect that they did not
contain explicit provisions, regulating compulsory life and
health insurance of the police officers that were admitted to
service before 1 May 2003 with funds of the state budget against
accidents in the course of execution of official duties, was not
in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of
Article 48, Article 52 of the Constitution, and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
III
On the compliance of inter alia Items 14, 15 (wording of 23
December 2002) of the Conditions under Which Persons are Insured
by State Funds and of Compensation Payment upon Their Injury or
Death in the Line of Duty (wording of 23 December 2002) approved
by Government Resolution No. 530 "On the Conditions under Which
Persons are Insured by State Funds and of Compensation Payment
upon Their Injury or Death in the Line of Duty" of 5 December
1991 with Article 40 of the Interior Service Statute approved by
the Law on the Approval of the Interior Service Statute (wording
of 29 April 2003).
1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, requests to investigate whether Items 14, 15 (wording
of 23 December 2002) of the Conditions under Which Persons are
Insured by State Funds and of Compensation Payment upon Their
Injury or Death in the Line of Duty approved by Government
Resolution No. 530 "On the Conditions under Which Persons are
Insured by State Funds and of Compensation Payment upon Their
Injury or Death in the Line of Duty" of 5 December 1991, to the
extent that it is established that a territorial unit of the
State Social Insurance Fund Board should decide regarding the
payment of insurance sums to the officers specified in Item 1.1
of these conditions upon their injury in the course of execution
of their official duties, while the places of employment of
statutory officers specified in Item 1.1 of these conditions
shall disburse insurance benefits to these officers, while the
Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requests
to investigate whether the Conditions are not in conflict with
Article 40 of the Statute ( wording of 29 April 2003). It was
noted that the compliance of inter alia Items 14, 15 (wording of
23 December 2002) of the Conditions (wording of 23 December 2002)
with Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the Statute is
disputed in the aspect that respective provisions regulated
social guarantees of officers of statutory establishments of the
interior and of the interior service system of the governance
area of the MI, however, not of all officers, but only of police
officers, and only those who were admitted to service prior to 1
May 2003 (i.e. before the coming into effect of the Law on the
Approval of the Interior Service Statute, while the Law on the
Police was still valid).
2. The doubts of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court
and the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioners,
are grounded on the fact that the social guarantee consolidated
in the Conditions, the compulsory health and life insurance of
officers with funds of the state budget against accidents in the
course of execution of their official duties, is not grounded on
the law, since, according to the petitioners, the legal
regulation of the above-mentioned relations was not consolidated
in the Statute (wording of 29 April 2003), inter alia, Article 40
(wording of 29 April 2003) thereof, which until then had been
consolidated in the Law on the Police (wording of 11 December
1990 with subsequent amendments and supplements).
3. The Conditions were approved by Item 1 of Government
Resolution No. 530 "On the Conditions under Which Persons are
Insured by State Funds and of Compensation Payment upon Their
Injury or Death in the Line of Duty" of 5 December 1991.
The Conditions were amended and/or supplemented more than
once, inter alia by Government Resolution No. 2088 "On the
Amendment of Resolution of the Government the Republic of
Lithuania No. 530 'On the Conditions under Which Persons are
Insured by State Funds and of Compensation Payment upon Their
Injury or Death in the Line of Duty' of 5 December 1991" of 23
December 2002, which came into effect on 1 January 2003, whereby
inter alia Item 1 (wording of 31 January 1996), Item 14 (wording
of 5 December 1991), and Item 15 (wording of 5 December 1991)
were amended.
3.1. Pursuant to Item 1.1 of the Conditions (wording of 23
December 2002) compulsory life and health insurance of statutory
officers of the MI, the police and other statutory establishments
of the interior with funds of the state budget shall be provided
against accidents in the course of execution of official duties.
3.2. Item 14 (wording of 23 December 2002) of the
Conditions disputed in this constitutional justice case
establishes the following:
"A request to disburse the insurance benefits shall be
submitted by the insured person, an individual authorized by him,
a family member or an individual assigned to receive insurance
benefits in the event of death of the insured person, at the
territorial unit of the State Social Insurance Fund no later than
within 3 years of the day of the event insured against.
With the request, the insured person (or a person
authorized by him) should enclose an act of the event written at
the place of employment, at the place of the service, training,
probation or practical training, a certificate about the wages
received at the time of the event insured against or about the
minimum monthly wages and a certificate of the personal health
care establishment.
Family members of the insured person or an individual
assigned by the insured person to receive the insurance benefit,
with the request, should enclose documents of personal identity
and documents evidencing the entitlement to receive the
disbursement, the death certificate of the insured person or a
certified copy thereof.
The former place of employment of the deceased insured
person, educational or other establishments or a military unit
where he served (had office), should submit a certificate about
the wages or about the minimum monthly wages and about the
assignment (if available) of the insured person or notify of
known successors of the insured person to territorial units of
the State Social Insurance Fund Board.
If required, territorial units of the State Social
Insurance Fund Board shall obtain additional documents from
establishments of investigation (pre-trial investigation), courts
and other establishments, as required to resolve issues of
disbursement of insurance benefits."
In Item 15 (wording of 23 December 2002) of the Conditions
disputed in this constitutional justice case the following was
established:
"Upon receipt of the documents specified in Item 14 of the
insurance conditions, a territorial unit of the State Social
Insurance Fund Board should within 10 business days resolve the
issue of payment of the insurance sum, notify the beneficiary
thereof and send a notification to the place of employment of the
insured person about the insurance sum to be disbursed or of the
reason of renouncing thereof. When a medical expertise, a
conclusion of investigation (pre-trial investigation), of a court
or when a certificate of the right of succession is required for
the ascertaining of the sum subject to disbursement, the
disbursement issue should be resolved and the decisions should be
notified to the beneficiary and to the place of employment of the
insured person within 10 days of the receipt of these documents.
The places of employment, educational and other
establishments or military units of the insured persons shall
disburse insurance sums from the funds provided for the purpose
in their expenditure estimates."
4. In this Constitutional Court ruling it has been held
that upon coming into effect of the Law on the Approval of the
Interior Service Statute the social guarantees of police officers
who were admitted to service before 1 May 2003 were maintained as
established theretofore in Articles 48 and 48-1 (wording of 9
June 1998) of the Law on the Police, i.e. the compensations in
the event of perishing or health disorder and compulsory life and
health insurance of police officers with funds of the state
budget against accidents in the course of execution of official
duties.
5. Having held the above, one is also to hold that there is
no ground to the presumption of the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court and the Klaipėda Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioners, that the compulsory life and health
insurance of police officers with funds of the state budget
against accidents in the course of execution of official duties
as consolidated in the Conditions is not grounded on the law. The
provisions, whereby the disputed legal regulation established in
the Conditions is grounded, are consolidated in Paragraph 2 of
Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on the
Approval of the Interior Service Statute and in Paragraph 8 of
Article 3 of the Statute.
6. Therefore, the compliance of inter alia Items 14, 15
(wording of 23 December 2002) of the Conditions (wording of 23
December 2002) with Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the
Statute cannot be questioned only because inter alia the
compulsory life and health insurance of the police officers
admitted to service before 1 May 2003 with funds of the state
budget against accidents in the course of execution of official
duties established in Items 14, 15 (wording of 23 December 2002)
of the Conditions (wording of 23 December 2002) is not grounded
on Article 40 of the Statute, since this article of the Statute
was designed for compensations disbursed in the event of
perishing or health disorder of a police officer.
7. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that the Conditions (wording of 23 December 2002), inter
alia Items 14, 15 (wording of 23 December 2002) thereof, in the
aspect that Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the Statute
did not provide explicit provisions regulating the compulsory
life and health insurance of the police officers admitted to
service before 1 May 2003 with funds of the state budget against
accidents in the course of execution of official duties, were not
in conflict with Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the
Statute.
Pursuant to Articles 102, 105 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, Articles 1, 53, 54, 55, and 56 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Constitutional Court, the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has passed the
following
ruling:
1. To recognize that Section 8 "The Health Care of Officers
and Social Guarantees Related Thereto" (wording of 29 April 2003)
of Chapter II, inter alia Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003),
of the Interior Service Statute approved by the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Interior Service Statute,
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2003, No. 42-1927), to the
extent and in the aspect that they did not contain explicit
provisions regulating compulsory life and health insurance of
police officers admitted to service before 1 May 2003 with funds
of the state budget against accidents in the course of execution
of official duties, was not in conflict with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania.
2. To recognize that the Conditions under Which Persons are
Insured by State Funds and of Compensation Payment upon Their
Injury or Death in the Line of Duty (wording of 23 December 2002)
approved by Government Resolution No. 530 "On the Conditions
under Which Persons are Insured by State Funds and of
Compensation Payment upon Their Injury or Death in the Line of
Duty" of 5 December 1991, inter alia Items 14, 15 (wording of 23
December 2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 124-
566) thereof, in the aspect that Article 40 of the Interior
Service Statute approved by the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Approval of Interior Service Statute (wording of 29 April 2003)
did not contain explicit provisions regulating the compulsory
life and health insurance of the police officers admitted to
service before 1 May 2003 with funds of the state budget against
accidents in the course of execution of official duties, were not
in conflict with Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the
Interior Service Statute approved by the Republic of Lithuania
Law on the Approval of the Interior Service Statute.
This ruling of the Constitutional Court is final and
subject to no 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
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Romualdas Kęstutis
Urbaitis