Case No. 01/08
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON DISMISSING THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE
SUBSEQUENT TO THE PETITION OF A GROUP OF MEMBERS OF THE
SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, THE PETITIONER,
REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER ARTICLE 8 OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON APPROVING THE FINANCIAL
INDICATORS OF THE 2007 STATE BUDGET AND MUNICIPAL
BUDGETS IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, WHETHER A PROVISION OF
RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA NO. 382 "ON INCREASING THE REMUNERATION OF
WORK OF EMPLOYEES OF ESTABLISHMENTS AND ORGANISATIONS
FINANCED FROM THE BUDGET, AS WELL AS THE BASIC PENSION
OF THE STATE SOCIAL INSURANCE AND THE MINIMUM SIZES" OF
1 APRIL 1998 IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA LAW ON INDIVIDUAL INCOME SECURITY
23 September 2008
Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Armanas
Abramavičius, Toma Birmontienė, Pranas Kuconis, Kęstutis
Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Egidijus Šileikis, Algirdas
Taminskas and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis,
with the secretary of the sittingDaiva Pitrėnaitė,
at a procedural sitting of the Constitutional Court
considered the petition of a group of Members of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, which was composed of
Vytautas Bogušis, Jonas Čekuolis, Algis Čaplikas, Arminas Lydeka,
Raimondas Šukys, Henrikas Žukauskas, Rimantas Remeika, Algirdas
Monkevičius, Nijolė Steiblienė, Remigijus Ačas, Saulius Lapėnas,
Vaclovas Karbauskis, Alvydas Ramanauskas, Vydas Gedvilas, Jadvyga
Zinkevičiūtė, Saulius Bucevičius, Ona Valiukevičiūtė, Vida Marija
Čigriejienė, Arimantas Dumčius, Loreta Graužinienė, Virginija
Baltraitienė, Manfredas Žymantas, Jonas Ramonas, Dailis Alfonsas
Barakauskas, Vytautas Kamblevičius, Rimantas Smetona, Zenonas
Mikutis, Petras Gražulis, and Raimundas Palaitis, requesting to
investigate whether:
- Article 8 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Approving
the Financial Indicators of the 2007 State Budget and Municipal
Budgets is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 30 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and the constitutional
principles of equal rights of all persons and a state under the
rule of law;
- the provision "As from 1 May 1998, to confirm the
following: <
> 2.3. the applicable minimum subsistence level125
litas per resident of the Republic of Lithuania per month" of
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 382
"On Increasing the Remuneration of Work of Employees of
Establishments and Organisations Financed from the Budget, as
Well as the Basic Pension of the State Social Insurance and the
Minimum Sizes" of 1 April 1998 is not in conflict with Paragraph
2 of Article 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,
the constitutional principles of separation of powers, equal
rights of all persons and a state under the rule of law, and
Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Individual Income Security.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. A group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, applied
to the Constitutional Court with a petition, requesting to
investigate whether:
- Article 8 of the Law on Approving the Financial Indicators
of the 2007 State Budget and Municipal Budgets (hereinafter also
referred to as the Law) is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of
Article 30 of the Constitution, and the constitutional principles
of equal rights of all persons and a state under the rule of law;
- the provision "As from 1 May 1998, to confirm the
following: <
> 2.3. the applicable minimum subsistence level125
litas per resident of the Republic of Lithuania per month" of
Government Resolution No. 382 "On Increasing the Remuneration of
Work of Employees of Establishments and Organisations Financed
from the Budget, as Well as the Basic Pension of the State Social
Insurance and the Minimum Sizes" of 1 April 1998 (hereinafter
also referred to as Government resolution No. 382 of 1 April
1998) is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 30 of the
Constitution, the constitutional principles of separation of
powers, equal rights of all persons and a state under the rule of
law, and Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Law on Individual Income
Security.
This request was received at the Constitutional Court on 3
January 2008.
2. By Ordinance of the President of the Constitutional Court
No. 2B-04 of 9 January 2008, subsequent to the petition of the
group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, the preparation
case No. 01/08 was begun for the Constitutional Court hearing.
II
1. Article 8 of the Law on Approving the Financial
Indicators of the 2007 State Budget and Municipal Budgets
provides: "To establish that as from 1 January 2007 the minimum
subsistence level shall be 130 litas per resident of the Republic
of Lithuania per month."
2. Item 2 of Government resolution No. 382 of 1 April 1998
inter alia provides: "As from 1 May 1998, to confirm the
following: <
> 2.3. the applicable minimum subsistence level125
litas per resident of the Republic of Lithuania per month."
III
The petition of the petitioner is substantiated by the
following arguments.
1. The minimum subsistence level (hereinafter also referred
to as the MSL) established both in Item 2.3 of Government
resolution No. 382 of 1 April 1998 and in Article 8 of the Law
does not meet the actual minimum subsistence level, which is much
higher. In addition, the MSL established by the disputed legal
regulation is not indexed under procedure established by the Law
on Individual Income Security. Article 1 (wording of 1 July 2003)
of the Law on Individual Income Security inter alia provides that
the minimum subsistence level (MSL) is the sum of a family's
monthly income falling upon one person per month and guaranteeing
the satisfaction of generally socially acceptable minimum level
of needs that meet the bodily needs for food according to
physiological norms, as well as the minimum needs for clothes,
footwear, furniture, household, sanitary and hygiene articles, as
well as apartment, communal, household, transport,
communications, cultural and educational services. The disputed
legal regulation violates the constitutional principle of legal
security, thus, also the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law, since the state has not fulfilled its duty
to secure the certainty and stability of the legal regulation, to
protect the rights (including the acquired rights) of subjects of
legal relations, and to respect legitimate interests and
legitimate expectations.
2. Since the size of the MSL is employed in establishment of
sizes of harm, which is subject to compensation, inflicted by
violent crimes, as well as sizes of fines for criminal deeds and
for administrative violations of law, one does not ensure the
actual and adequate protection of violated human rights and
freedoms. Thus, Article 8 of the Law and the provision "As from 1
May 1998, to confirm the following: <
> 2.3. the applicable
minimum subsistence level125 litas per resident of the Republic
of Lithuania per month" of Government resolution No. 382 of 1
April 1998 are in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 30 of the
Constitution wherein it is established that compensation for
material and moral damage inflicted upon a person shall be
established by law.
3. In the course of application of the constitutional
principle of equality of rights of persons it is required that
law entrench the main rights and duties equally to everyone. When
the prices of various goods and services are increasing, and when
the size of the MSL established in the legal acts remains
unchanged, when it is not indexed, the persons who are victims of
criminal deeds receive a comparatively smaller compensation than
the compensation which was received by the persons who were
victims under analogous conditions earlier. Besides, the person
who is punished by a monetary fine pays less for the same
violation of law in comparison to a person, who was punished some
time ago. Thus, the disputed legal regulation consolidated both
in the Law and in Government resolution No. 382 of 1 April 1998
violates the constitutional principle of equal rights of persons.
4. The provision "As from 1 May 1998, to confirm the
following: <
> 2.3. the applicable minimum subsistence level125
litas per resident of the Republic of Lithuania per month" of
Government resolution No. 382 of 1 April 1998 is in conflict with
the constitutional principle of separation of powers and
Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Law on Individual Income
Security, which provides that the minimum subsistence level shall
be approved by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania
on the recommendation of the Government at least once every five
years. By approving the applicable MSL by means of the disputed
resolution, the Government unreasonably took over the functions
which are commissioned to the legislator by the law. In addition,
it is prohibited to regulate, by means of legal acts of lower
power, those public relations that can be regulated only by means
of legal acts of higher power. Also, it is prohibited to
establish any such legal regulation in legal acts of lower power,
which would compete with the legal regulation established in
legal acts of higher power.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were received
from the representatives of the Seimas, a party concerned, who
were Irena Degutienė, a Member of the Seimas, and Sigita
Krutkevičienė, a senior advisor to the Legal Department of the
Office of the Seimas, as well as from the representatives of the
Government, a party concerned, who were Vita Safjan, Director of
the Strategic Planning and Social Inclusion Department of the
Ministry of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of
Lithuania, and Vida Marija Zabarauskienė, Head of the Law
Division of the same ministry.
1. According to the representatives of the Seimas, a party
concerned, Article 8 of the Law is not in conflict with Paragraph
2 of Article 30 of the Constitution, the constitutional
principles of equal rights of persons and a sate of law. Their
position is substantiated by the following arguments.
1.1. The notion of the MSL is rather widespread in the legal
system of Lithuania. Although in its essence this notion is to be
linked rather with the legal relations regulating social security
and assistance, however, certain socio-economic circumstances and
the practice of drafting of legal acts determined that the notion
of the MSL was begun to be used also in other legal acts, which
do not regulate social security and assistance; for instance, the
legal acts regulating compensation for damage, or regulating
legal liability for commission of violations of law or for
commission of crimes. The concept of the MSL as presented in the
Law on Individual Income Security gradually lost its meaning. The
MSL was begun to be used as a certain basic coefficient. The
representatives of the Seimas, a party concerned, substantiate
their position inter alia by the doctrinal provisions of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 20 March 2007 and point out that
the use of the MSL in the legal system is to be assessed as
legally incorrect, however, only this fact may not be the grounds
for recognition that the disputed legal regulation is in conflict
with the Constitution.
1.2. Although the MSL established by the disputed legal
regulation does not meet the actual MSL which should secure the
minimum needs of residents enumerated in the Law on Individual
Income Security, the legitimate expectations and, alongside, the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, one
elements of which is the principle of legal security, were not
violated, since part of the payments were increased not by
increasing the MSL itself, but by increasing the coefficient of
computation of the payments.
1.3. The limits of fines established in laws are rational,
while the court that imposes the fine is granted the right to
assess the circumstances which have the legal significance in the
case, and to take account of these circumstances.
The obligation to compensate the material and moral damage
inflicted upon a person appears in civil legal relations, as well
as when norms of administrative and criminal law have been
violated. The laws do not relate the size of the damage, which is
subject to compensation, with the MSL, save the situations when,
in situations provided for in the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Compensation for Damage Inflicted by Violent Crimes, the damage
is compensated from state funds. The fact whether the
compensation for damage from state funds is sufficient is not an
issue of the compliance of the Law with the Constitution.
2. According to the representatives of the Government, a
party concerned, the provision "As from 1 May 1998, to confirm
the following: <
> 2.3. the applicable minimum subsistence
level125 litas per resident of the Republic of Lithuania per
month" of Government resolution No. 382 of 1 April 1998 is not in
conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution, and
the constitutional principles of separation of powers, equal
rights of persons and a state under the rule of law, as well as
with Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Law on Individual Income
Security. Their position is substantiated by the following
arguments.
2.1. The arguments regarding the compliance of the provision
of Government resolution No. 382 of 1 April 1998 with the
Constitution are virtually the same as the arguments of the
representatives of the Seimas, a party concerned, regarding the
compliance of Article 8 of the Law with the Constitution.
2.2. The size of the MSL was reasonably approved by means of
Government resolutions, since this was determined by the
necessity to apply such size immediately. Right after the entry
of the Constitution into effect, there was a special legal
situation, where most of the laws which had to regulate the
powers of the Government had not been adopted yet, therefore the
Government used to adopt such resolutions the adoption of which,
according to the laws, was not within the powers of the
Government.
V
In the course of the preparation for the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were received
from Petra Baguška, Minister of Justice of the Republic of
Lithuania, and Rimantas Šadžius, Minister of Finance of the
Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On 1 April 1998, the Government adopted Resolution No.
382 "On Increasing the Remuneration of Work of Employees of
Establishments and Organisations Financed from the Budget, as
Well as the Basic Pension of the State Social Insurance and the
Minimum Sizes", which came into force on 4 April 1998. Item 2 of
this resolution inter alia provides: "As from 1 May 1998, to
confirm the following: <
> 2.3. the applicable minimum
subsistence level125 litas per resident of the Republic of
Lithuania per month."
On 7 December 2006, the Seimas adopted the Law on Approving
the Financial Indicators of the 2007 State Budget and Municipal
Budgets, which came into force on 19 December 2006. Article 8 of
this law provides: "To establish that as from 1 January 2007 the
minimum subsistence level shall be 130 litas per resident of the
Republic of Lithuania per month."
Both Article 8 of the Law and the provision "As from 1 May
1998, to confirm the following: <
> 2.3. the applicable minimum
subsistence level125 litas per resident of the Republic of
Lithuania per month" of Government resolution No. 382 of 1 April
1998, which are disputed by the petitioner, are designed for
establishment of the size of the MSL. The notion of the MSL as a
certain institute of law is entrenched in Article 1 of the Law on
Individual Income Security. The MSL is the sum of a family's
monthly income falling upon one person per month and guaranteeing
the satisfaction of generally socially acceptable minimum level
of needs that meet the bodily needs for food according to
physiological norms, as well as the minimum needs for clothes,
footwear, furniture, household, sanitary and hygiene articles, as
well as apartment, communal, household, transport,
communications, cultural and educational services.
It needs to be noted that the MSL as an institute of law per
se is not entrenched in the Constitution.
2. It needs to be mentioned that, on 6 December 2007, the
Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania Law on Approving the
Financial Indicators of the 2008 State Budget and Municipal
Budgets, which came into force on 15 December 2007. Article 8 of
this law provides: "To establish that in 2008 the minimum
subsistence level shall be 130 litas per resident of the Republic
of Lithuania per month." Such legal regulation is virtually
analogous to that entrenched in Article 8 of the Law on Approving
the Financial Indicators of the 2007 State Budget and Municipal
Budgets, which is disputed by the petitioner.
3. On 15 July 2008, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Indexation of the Sizes of the Minimum
Remuneration for Work, Social Security Payments and of the Basic
Size of Punishments and Penalties (hereinafter also referred to
as the Law on Indexation), which, together with certain
exceptions, came into force on 1 August 2008. This law
establishes reference indicators for social security payments,
the procedure of the approval of the indicators, the basic size
of punishments and penalties and its application, the indexation
of the sizes of the minimum remuneration for work, that of
reference indicators for social security payments, that of state
pensions of officials and servicemen, and that of state pensions
for service (years of service) and pensions for lost ability to
work of the officials and servicemen who were appointed prior to
1 July 1991, and that of state pensions of judges (Article 1 of
the Law on Indexation).
4. It needs to be noted that upon the entry into force of
the Law on Indexation, the indicator "minimum subsistence level",
or the "MSL", which is employed in other legal acts, is, as it is
specified in Paragraph 3 of Article 10 of the Law on Indexation,
"identical and equal to the basic social payment", while it is
indicated in Paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the Law on Indexation
that the indicator "minimum subsistence level", or the "MSL",
employed in the legal acts regulating the qualification of
criminal deeds and administrative violations of law and the
definition and computation of the sizes of punishments and
penalties, is "identical and equal to the basic size of
punishments and penalties".
It also needs to be noted that upon the entry into effect of
the Law on Indexation, the Law on Individual Income Security, in
which the concept of the legal institute of MSL was entrenched,
became no longer valid (Article 9 of the Law on Indexation).
4.1. Under Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on
Indexation, the basic social payment is an indicator to define
and compute social security payments and other sizes established
in legal acts. Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Law on Indexation
provides that the basic size of punishments and penalties is an
indicator applied to qualify criminal deeds and administrative
violations of law and to define and compute the sizes of
punishments and penalties.
The indexation of the indicators of social security payments
(while the basic social payment is one of such payments) is
established in Articles 4 and 6 of the Law on Indexation. The
procedure for indexation of the basic size of punishments and
penalties is established in Articles 4 and 7 of the Law. It needs
to be mentioned that, under Paragraph 5 of Article 10 of the Law
on Indexation, until 1 August 2008, the initial size of
punishments and penalties shall be approved by the Government.
4.2. Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Law on Indexation
provides that on the day of entry into force of this law, the
size of the basic social payment shall be equalled to the size of
the MSL valid on the same day. Thus, under the Law on Indexation,
the basic social payment and the MSL were equalised in their
numerical meaning, however, the identity of the numerical meaning
between the basic social payment and the MSL does not imply the
identity between the institutes of the social payment and the
MSL, i.e. in their content these institutes are not identical.
As mentioned, the basic social payment and the basic size of
punishments and penalties are certain indicators in order to
define and compute social security payments and other sizes
established in legal acts and to qualify criminal deeds and
administrative violations of law and to define and compute the
sizes of punishments and penalties; they are not linked with the
concept of the institute of the MSL which was consolidated in the
Law on Individual Income Security. As mentioned , under the Law
on Individual Income Security, the MSL is the sum of a family's
monthly income falling upon one person per month and guaranteeing
the satisfaction of generally socially acceptable minimum level
of needs that meet the bodily needs for food according to
physiological norms, as well as the minimum needs for clothes,
footwear, furniture, household, sanitary and hygiene articles, as
well as apartment, communal, household, transport,
communications, cultural and educational services.
In this context it needs to be noted that the legal
regulation disputed by the petitioners has not been formally
abolished, however, upon adoption of the Law on Indexation, the
said legal regulation was amended in the aspect that the
institute of the MSL disappeared.
5. The doubts of the petitioner regarding the compliance of
the disputed legal regulation with the Constitution are linked
with the purpose and concept of the institute of the MSL, inter
alia with the fact that the MSL as established in Item 2.3 of
Government resolution No. 382 of 1 April 1998 and Article 8 of
the Law, is, from the standpoint of the concept of this
institute, of unrealistic size.
6. Taking account of what has been set forth above, one is
to draw a conclusion that after the Law on Indexation came into
force, the legal institute of the MSL, with which the legal
regulation entrenched in Government resolution No. 382 of 1 April
1998 and the Law is related, and which is disputed by the
petitioner, ceased to exist. Thus, there is not any matter of
investigation in the constitutional justice case at issue.
7. Paragraph 2 of Article 80 (regulating a refusal of the
Constitutional Court to examine an inquiry) of the Law on the
Constitutional Court 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, 6 September 2007 and decision of 13 November
2007).
8. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to hold
that in the constitutional justice case at issue the instituted
legal proceedings are to be dismissed.
Conforming to Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 22, Article 28,
Article 66, Paragraph 4 of Article 69 and Article 70 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 instituted legal proceedings in Case No. 01/
08 subsequent to the petition of the group of Members of the
Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Article
8 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Approving the Financial
Indicators of the 2007 State Budget and Municipal Budgets is not
in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania, and the constitutional principles of
equal rights of all persons and a state under the rule of law,
also whether the provision "As from 1 May 1998, to confirm the
following: <
> 2.3. the applicable minimum subsistence level125
litas per resident of the Republic of Lithuania per month" of
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 382
"On Increasing the Remuneration of Work of Employees of
Establishments and Organisations Financed from the Budget, as
Well as the Basic Pension of the State Social Insurance and the
Minimum Sizes" of 1 April 1998 is not in conflict with Paragraph
2 of Article 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,
the constitutional principles of separation of powers, equal
rights of all persons and a state under the rule of law, and
Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Individual Income Security.
This decision of the Constitutional Court is final and not
subject to appeal.
The decision is promulgated in the name of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court:
Armanas Abramavičius
Toma Birmontienė
Pranas Kuconis
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Egidijus Šileikis
Algirdas Taminskas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis