Case No. 56/06
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISION OF PARAGRAPH 2
(WORDING OF 19 MAY 2005) OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA LAW ON SOCIAL INSURANCE OF ACCIDENTS AT WORK
AND OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES AND THE PROVISION OF ITEM 13
(WORDING OF 22 MARCH 2004) OF THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING
SOCIAL INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR ACCIDENTS AT WORK AND
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY RESOLUTION
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA NO. 309
"ON CONFIRMATION OF THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING SOCIAL
INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR ACCIDENTS AT WORK AND
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES" OF 22 MARCH 2004 WITH THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
29 April 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, Ramutė Ruškytė, Egidijus Šileikis,
Algirdas Taminskas and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis,
with the secretary of the hearingDaiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of the representative of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania, a party concerned, who was Zenonas
Mikutis, a Member of the Seimas,
in the presence of the representatives of the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania, a party concerned, who were Svetlana
Černuševič, Head of the Department of Social Insurance and
Pensions of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, and
Marija Paskočinienė, Head of the Benefits and Disability Control
Section of the State Social Insurance Fund Board under the
Ministry of Social Security and Labour,
pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public
hearing on 16 April 2008 heard constitutional justice case No.
56/06 subsequent to the petition (No. 1B-60/2006) of the Klaipėda
Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether Item 1 (wording of 11 November 2003) of
Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases and the provision "Accidents at work, or
established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
recognised as events insured against if upon their investigation
it is established that they meet the conditions laid down in
Items 7, 8, 10 or 11 of these Regulations, however, their
occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances:
13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from
narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not
related to the peculiarities of the technology of work attributed
to him by the insurance payer" of Item 13 (wording of 22 March
2004) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases confirmed by
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 309
"On Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance
Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" of 22
March 2004 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29,
Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principle
of a state under the rule of law.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. The Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, was investigating 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 Item 1 (wording of 11 November 2003) of
Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law on
Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases
(hereinafter also referred to as the Law) and the provision
"Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases
shall also not be recognised as events insured against if upon
their investigation it is established that they meet the
conditions laid down in Items 7, 8, 10 or 11 of these
Regulations, however, their occurrence satisfies at least one of
the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was
inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic
substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the
technology of work attributed to him by the insurance payer" of
Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations Concerning
Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases (hereinafter also referred to as the Regulations)
confirmed by Government Resolution No. 309 "On Confirmation of
the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" of 22 March 2004
(hereinafter also referred to as Government Resolution No. 309 of
22 March 2004) are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article
29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution,
and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule
of law.
II
The petition of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court,
the petitioner, is grounded on the following arguments.
The Constitution establishes the guarantees of workers
regarding the formation of safe and healthy conditions at work as
well as the right to receive social assistance in the event of
unemployment. According to the petitioner, in the Labour Code of
the Republic of Lithuania it is established that the employer
must secure safety and health of employees, as well as create
proper and safe working conditions which are non-hazardous to
health. Paying social insurance contributions, the employer
insures his responsibility against accidents at work.
The disputed Item 1 (wording of 11 November 2003) of
Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law on
Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases
and Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations
confirmed by Government Resolution No. 309 of 22 March 2004
enshrine the imperative requirement to recognise in all cases,
regardless of the reasons of an accident, the accident when an
employee is inebriated as an event not insured against. In the
presence of such regulation, the employee is recognised as being
absolutely at fault for the accident at work even when his
drunkenness degree was low and it had no influence on the fact
that there was an accident, while the accident happened only
because of the fact that the employer had not created safe and
healthy working conditions. Such regulation violates the
Constitution, inter alia Paragraph 1 of its Article 29, Paragraph
1 of its Article 48 and Article 52 thereof, and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were received
from the representative of the Seimas, a party concerned, who was
the Member of the Seimas Z. Mikutis, and the representatives of
the Government, a party concerned, who were S. Černuševič and M.
Paskočinienė, in which it is stated that the disputed provisions
of the legal acts are not in conflict with the Constitution.
1. The position of the Member of the Seimas Z. Mikutis, the
representative of the Seimas, a party concerned, is based on the
following arguments.
1.1. If the behaviour of a person does not meet the
standards of behaviour at the working place which are established
by laws, i.e. he is inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic or
other substances, the risk for an accident at work increases and
there appears a threat for public interests. When it is
established by means of the disputed regulation that an accident
at work which happened to an inebriated person is not recognised
as an event insured against, namely the constitutional principle
of a state under the rule of law is followed. When choosing any
job, a person has the right (in case of an event insured against)
to receive social insurance benefits for accidents at work,
however, he reasonably loses them, if he consciously does not
follow the requirements established by the legal acts (i.e., when
he is inebriated), therefore, such recognition of accidents at
work as events not insured against is not in conflict with
Article 29 of the Constitution.
1.2. The disputed provision of the Law is not in conflict
with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, since the
duty of the employer, which stems from the Constitution, to
ensure that safety requirements for the employees at the place of
work are followed, is implemented implicitly also by attributing
accidents at work which happened with regard of inebriated
persons to events which are not insured against. The inebriated
employees should not expect that the state will implement its
duties regardless of the circumstances of the accident at work,
since, otherwise, the content and essence of the social
assistance which is established in Article 52 of the Constitution
and which is guaranteed in the cases which are provided for in
the Constitution and laws would be distorted.
2. The position of S. Černuševič, a representative of the
Government, a party concerned, is based on the following
arguments.
2.1. When being inebriated at work, a person obviously
violates his constitutional duty to follow laws, and this duty
stems from the principle of a state under the rule of law. While
implementing the requirements of the laws grounded on the
constitutional principles, the Government established in the
disputed resolution a reasonable requirement for persons to
implement their duties. The state social insurance benefits in
the presence of the established regulation (to the extent
disputed by the petitioner) are not paid namely because of the
fact that by such regulation established by the Government one
seeks to give equal opportunities to all working persons to
receive the said benefits (and not to abuse this right by those
inebriated persons who are at work when the event insured against
takes place), thus, the said regulation is in compliance with
Article 29 of the Constitution.
2.2. The right to proper and safe conditions at work which
is enshrined in Article 48 of the Constitution would be violated
if the Government resolutions did not establish the duty for the
employees to properly implement their work functions (inter alia
to abstain from using intoxicants at work).
2.3. In case of the death of a person who suffered injury,
his family members do not lose the right to apply for the state
social insurance widows' and/or orphans' pensions even in those
cases, when the accident at work is not recognised as an event
insured against and the person who suffered injury (in case of
his deathhis family members) does not acquire the right to the
social insurance benefit for accidents at work, thus, such
regulation is not in conflict with Article 52 of the
Constitution.
3. In the written explanations of M. Paskočinienė, a
representative of the Government, a party concerned, it is stated
that after a requirement has been established in the Government
resolution to recognise, in all cases, an accident at work during
which the insured person was inebriated as an event not insured
against, the constitutional principle of all persons equality
before the law has been implemented. This principle implies the
duty of the legislator to require that the employees follow the
principles of reasonableness, justice and good faith, that they
not abuse their rights, inter alia that they not drink alcohol
(since it is a gross breach of work discipline). Such regulation
when the employees who abuse their rights, inter alia who drink
alcohol at work, lose their social assistance in case of an
accident, is in conformity also to the constitutional principle
of a state under the rule of law because the restriction of the
use of alcohol established in the legal acts is a part of state
policy which is implemented while creating a healthy society, and
a safe and strong state.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were received
from P. Koverovas, State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice of
the Republic of Lithuania, J. Andriuškevičiūtė, a senior adviser
of the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas, M. Mikaila,
Director of the State Social Insurance Fund Board under the
Ministry of Social Security and Labour, and J. Naujalis, Deputy
Chief State Labour Inspector of the Republic of Lithuania,.
V
At the Constitutional Court hearing, the representative of
the Seimas, a party concerned, who was Z. Mikutis, a Member of
the Seimas, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in his
written explanations.
At the Constitutional Court hearing, the representatives of
the Government, a party concerned, who were S. Černuševič and M.
Paskočinienė, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in
their written explanations, as well as presented additional
explanations.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, requests to investigate whether Item 1 (wording of 11
November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article
7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases and the provision "Accidents at work, or
established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
recognised as events insured against if upon their investigation
it is established that they meet the conditions laid down in
Items 7, 8, 10 or 11 of these Regulations, however, their
occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances:
13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from
narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not
related to the peculiarities of the technology of work attributed
to him by the insurance payer" of Item 13 (wording of 22 March
2004) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases which were confirmed
by Government Resolution No. 309 "On Confirmation of the
Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at
Work and Occupational Diseases" of 22 March 2004 are not in
conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article
48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
2. It is obvious from the arguments of the petition of the
petitioner that he doubts whether the provision "accidents at
work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall also
not be recognised as events insured against if upon their
investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence
satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the
insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic
or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the
peculiarities of the technology of work attributed to him by the
insurance payer" (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2
(wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law and the
provision "Accidents at work, or established acute occupational
diseases shall also not be recognised as events insured against
if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their
occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances:
13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from
narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not
related to the peculiarities of the technology of work attributed
to him by the insurance payer" of Item 13 (wording of 22 March
2004) of the Regulations which were confirmed by Government
Resolution No. 309 of 22 March 2004, in the aspect that those
accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases,
upon the investigation of which it is established that the
insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic
or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the
peculiarities of the technology of work attributed to him by the
insurance payer), but the insured person's inebriety or
intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances was
not the reason of the accident at work or established acute
occupational disease, are not recognised as events insured
against, are not in conflict with the provision "Each human being
<...> shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy
conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in the event
of unemployment" of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the
Constitution.
II
1. On 23 December 1999, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases which came into force on 1 January 2000.
Under Article 1 of the Law, this Law regulated the relations of
social insurance of an accident at work, on the way to or from
work and occupational disease occurrences, stipulated the
categories of persons who are insured with this type of social
insurance, the rights to such insurance benefits, conditions,
calculation and payment of benefits, and defined the events which
are insured or not insured against.
2. Item 1 (wording of 23 December 1999) of Paragraph 1 of
Article 7 of Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases established:
"The events insured against shall not include the accidents
at work, upon investigation of which it was established that they
had taken place as a result of:
(1) the fact that the person who suffered injury was
intoxicated from alcohol, narcotics or toxic materials and this
did not have any connection with the technological process."
The Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases (wording of 23 December 1999) has been
amended and supplemented more than once, however, Item 1 (wording
of 23 December 1999) of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 thereof has not
been amended and supplemented.
3. It needs to be noted that according to Item 1 (wording of
23 December 1999) of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Law on
Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases,
the state of the insured person (intoxication from alcohol,
narcotics or toxic substances) during the accident at work was
not made absolute; under this regulation, only those accidents at
work, upon investigation of which it was established that they
had happened because of the fact that the person who suffered
injury was intoxicated from alcohol, narcotics or toxic
substances and it was not related to the technological process,
were not attributed to events insured against.
It needs to be noted that after coming into force of the Law
on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases (wording of 23 December 1999), the Republic of Lithuania
Provisional Law on Compensation for Damage Pertaining to
Accidents at Work or Occupational Diseases which was adopted by
the Seimas on 1 July 1997 and which came into force on 1
September 1997, continues to be in effect; the said law is
applied for compensation for damage: (1) pertaining to accidents
at work which happened until 31 December 1999 inclusive, and to
occupational diseases which were recognised, under the
established procedure, as occupational diseases until 31 December
1999 inclusive; (2) pertaining to occupational diseases which
were recognised, under the established procedure, as occupational
diseases after 1 January 2000 to those victims who after 1
January 2000 were not insured under the provisions of the Law on
Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases
(Paragraph 7 (wording of 29 May 2003) of Article 23 of the Law).
4. On 8 May 2000, the Government adopted Resolution No. 506
"On Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance
Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" which
came into force on 11 May 2000 and which confirmed the
Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at
Work and Occupational Diseases (hereinafter also referred to as
the Regulations confirmed by Government Resolution No. 506 of 8
May 2000) which regulated the procedure for allocation and
payment of the insurance benefits from the funds allocated for
social insurance against accidents at work and occupational
diseases. They did not enumerate the cases when accidents at work
or established acute occupational diseases are recognised or are
not recognised as events insured against.
The Regulations confirmed by Government Resolution No. 506
of 8 May 2000 have been amended more than once, however, the
cases when the accidents at work or established acute
occupational diseases were recognised or were not recognised as
events insured against were not enumerated therein.
5. On 11 November 2003, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending the Law on Social Insurance of
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, whose Article 1 set
forth the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases in a new wording. The Law on Social
Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases of a new
wording came into force as from 1 January 2004, with the
exception of its Article 29 which had to come into force as from
1 January 2005.
6. The Law (wording of 11 November 2003) establishes the
relations of social insurance of an accident at work, on the way
to and from work, and occupational disease occurrences,
stipulates the categories of persons who are insured with this
type of social insurance, the rights to such insurance benefits,
conditions, calculation and payment of benefits, and defines the
events insured or not insured against (Article 1). Under the Law,
in the cases specified in this Law the social insurance of an
accident at work compensates the income which was not received
due to the events insured against (accidents at work, on the way
to or from work or occupational diseases) for the persons who are
insured by this kind of insurance, and in case of their death in
the cases of events insured againstfor the members of their
families (Paragraph 1 of Article 2); the services of treatment
and medical rehabilitation of the persons who suffered injury are
compensated under the procedure established in the Law on Health
Insurance (Paragraph 2 of Article 2).
Under the Law (wording of 11 November 2003), due to an event
insured against, the insured person, who partially or fully lost
his working capacity, shall be paid the following from the funds
allocated for social insurance against accidents at work from the
budget of the State Social Insurance Fund: a benefit for a
disease due to an accident at work, on the way to or from work,
or a benefit for an occupational disease (Item 1 of Paragraph 1
of Article 11), one-time compensation for the lost working
capacity (Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 11), periodic
compensation for the lost working capacity (Item 3 of Paragraph 1
of Article 11), upon death of the insured person because of an
event insured against, his family members shall be paid a one-
time insurance benefit in equal parts (Paragraph 2 of Article
11), upon death of the insured person because of an event insured
against, his family members shall be paid a periodic insurance
benefit in equal parts (Paragraph 3 of Article 11).
Under the Law, an accident at work is an event at work,
including a traffic accident at the time of work, which was
investigated under the established procedure and recognised as an
accident at work, whose consequence is the employee's injury
(minor, major, fatal); an event at work, when the employee died
because of a disease not linked to the job, is not attributed to
an accident at work (Paragraph 11 of Article 3); an occupational
disease is sudden or chronic deterioration in the health of an
employee, caused by one or more harmful and/or dangerous factors
in the work environment, which in accordance with the established
procedure has been recognised as an occupational disease
(Paragraph 14 of Article 3).
In this context, it needs to be noted that, under Item 2
(wording of 1 July 2003) of Paragraph 4 of Article 42 titled
"Classification of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases"
of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Safety and Health of
Employees, which was adopted by the Seimas on 1 July 2003 and
which came into force on 16 July 2003, a sudden occupational
disease is a sudden disorder of health of an employee which is
caused by a short-term (one-time or during one working day)
dangerous feature (features) of the working environment, which is
characterised by a sudden effect.
7. It needs to be noted that Article 6 titled "The Events
Insured Against" (wording of 23 December 2005, effective at the
time of consideration of the constitutional justice case at
issue) of the Law consolidates the conditions, upon establishment
of which accidents at work or occupational diseases are
recognised as events insured against.
Paragraph 1 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Article 7
titled "The Events Not Insured Against" of the Law establishes a
general rule, under which, the accidents at work, on the way to
or from work, or the established occupational diseases, upon the
investigation of which it is established that they do not meet
the conditions established in Article 6 of this Law, are not
recognised as events insured against.
Under Paragraph 2 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Article 7
of the Law, whose provision in the specified aspect is disputed
in this constitutional justice case, accidents at work, on the
way to or from work, or established acute occupational diseases
also were not recognised as events insured against if upon their
investigation it is established that even though they meet the
conditions laid down in Article 6 of this Law, their occurrence
satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the
insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic
or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the
peculiarities of the technology of work attributed to him by the
insurance payer; (2) the insured person suffered from his own
deed, in which the institution of pre-trial investigation or the
court established features of a criminal deed or that this deed
is related to an administrative violation of law; (3) the insured
person deliberately (on purpose) aimed that the accident would
happen; (4) the insured person suffered from a disease which was
not related to the job; (5) the insured person arbitrarily
(without the employer's knowledge) worked for himself (in his
interests); (6) violence was used against the insured person, if
the circumstances and reasons of the violence are not related to
work.
Thus, under Paragraph 2 (wording of 11 November 2003) of
Article 7 of the Law, in case there were at least one of these
circumstances, accidents at work or established acute
occupational diseases were not recognised as events insured
against.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue,
it needs to be noted that under Paragraph 2 (wording of 11
November 2003) of Article 7 of the Law, one of the independent
circumstances when accidents at work or established acute
occupational diseases are not recognised as events insured
against is the insured person's inebriety or intoxication from
narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (when it is not
related to the peculiarities of the technology of work attributed
to him by the insurance payer).
The Law, inter alia Article 7 (wording of 11 November 2003)
thereof, has been amended and supplemented. Item 2 (wording of 11
November 2003) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Social
Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases has been
amended by inter alia Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on Amending Articles 2, 3, 4, 7, 26 and 27 of the Law on Social
Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (wording
of 24 June 2004), which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 June
2004after the word "violation", the words "save the violations
of the normative legal acts on safety or hygiene at work" were
included, and this item was set forth as follows: "(2) the
insured person suffered from his own deed, in which the
institution of pre-trial investigation or the court established
features of a criminal deed or that this deed is related to an
administrative violation of law, save the violations of the
normative legal acts on safety or hygiene at work"; Article 3 of
Section II of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending and
Supplementing the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work
and Occupational Diseases, the Provisional Law on Compensation
for Damage Pertaining to Accidents at Work or Occupational
Diseases, the Law on Health Insurance, and the Law on State
Social Insurance, which was adopted by the Seimas on 19 May 2005
and which came into force on 1 July 2005, supplemented Item 6
(wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the
Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseasesafter the word "work", the words "save the cases, when
the accident happens on the way to or from work" were included
and this item was set forth as follows: "(6) violence was used
against the insured person, if the circumstances and reasons of
the violence are not related to work, save the cases, when the
accident happens on the way to or from work", however, the
provision "accidents at work <...> or established acute
occupational diseases shall also not be recognised as events
insured against if upon their investigation it is established
that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the
following circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or
intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and
this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of
work attributed to him by the insurance payer" (wording of 11
November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article
7, which is in the specified aspect disputed by the petitioner in
this constitutional justice case, has not been amended and/or
supplemented.
8. While construing the provision "accidents at work <...>
or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
recognised as events insured against if upon their investigation
it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least
one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was
inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic
substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the
technology of work attributed to him by the insurance payer"
(wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May
2005) of Article 7 of the Law, which is disputed by the
petitioner, one is to note that the legal regulation enshrined in
it includes the legal situations where:
- accidents at work or established occupational diseases are
not recognised as events insured against inter alia in the cases
when the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from
narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not
related to the peculiarities of the technology of work attributed
to him by the insurance payer), and the accident at work or the
insured person's falling ill with an acute occupational disease
was caused namely by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic,
toxic or psychotropic substances;
- accidents at work or established occupational diseases are
not recognised as events insured against inter alia in the cases
when the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from
narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not
related to the peculiarities of the technology of work attributed
to him by the insurance payer), but the accident at work or the
insured person's falling ill with an acute occupational disease
was caused not by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic,
toxic or psychotropic substances.
Therefore, under the regulation enshrined in the provision
"accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational
diseases shall also not be recognised as events insured against
if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their
occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances:
(1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from
narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not
related to the peculiarities of the technology of work attributed
to him by the insurance payer" (wording of 11 November 2003) of
Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law,
accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases are
not recognised as events insured against both in the cases when
the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic,
toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the
peculiarities of the technology of work attributed to him by the
insurance payer), and the accident at work or the insured
person's falling ill with an acute occupational disease was
caused namely by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic,
toxic or psychotropic substances, and in the cases when the
insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic
or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the
peculiarities of the technology of work attributed to him by the
insurance payer), but the accident at work or the insured
person's falling ill with an acute occupational disease was
caused not by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic
or psychotropic substances.
9. On 22 March 2004, the Government adopted Resolution No.
309 "On Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social
Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases" whose Item 2 recognised Government Resolution No. 506
"On Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance
Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" of 8
May 2000 and the Government resolutions which amended it were
recognised as no longer valid, and whose Item 1 approved the new
Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at
Work and Occupational Diseases.
Under Item 1 of the Regulations approved by Government
resolution No. 309 of 22 March 2004, the Regulations regulate the
recognition of accidents at work, to or from work, and
occupational diseases as events insured against, the allocation
and payment of the insurance benefits and establish the procedure
of their calculation and payment.
10. Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations
inter alia provides:
"13. Accidents at work, or established acute occupational
diseases shall also not be recognised as events insured against,
if upon their investigation it is established that they meet the
conditions laid down in Items 7, 8, 10 or 11 of these
Regulations, however, their occurrence satisfies at least one of
the following circumstances:
13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from
narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not
related to the peculiarities of the technology of work attributed
to him by the insurance payer."
Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004 of the Regulations
approved by Government Resolution No. 309 of 22 March 2004 has
been amended and supplemented more than once, however, the
disputed provision "Accidents at work, or established acute
occupational diseases shall also not be recognised as events
insured against, if upon their investigation it is established
that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the
following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was inebriated
or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances
and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology
of work attributed to him by the insurance payer" of Item 13
(wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations has not been
amended or supplemented.
III
1. In this constitutional justice case regarding the
compliance with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article
48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, one
disputes the legal acts (paragraphs thereof) which regulate the
relations linked to the provision of social assistance of a
corresponding kind.
2. Article 52 of the Constitution provides: "The State shall
guarantee to citizens the right to receive old age and disability
pensions as well as social assistance in the event of
unemployment, sickness, widowhood, loss of the breadwinner, and
in other cases provided for by laws."
3. While construing Article 52 of the Constitution, in its
rulings the Constitutional Court has held more than once: under
the Constitution, the State of Lithuania is socially oriented and
every citizen of it has the right to social protection; the
social maintenance, i.e. contribution of the society to
maintenance of such its members who are incapable of providing
themselves from work or other means or who are not sufficiently
provided as a result of important reasons provided by law, is
recognised as having the status of a constitutional value; the
measures of social protection express the idea of social
solidarity, they help a person to protect himself from possible
social hazards; pensions and social assistance provided for in
Article 52 of the Constitution are one of the forms of social
protection; the provisions of Article 52 of the Constitution
guaranteeing citizens' right to social maintenance, obligate the
state to establish sufficient measures to implement and legally
protect the said right; the formula "the state shall guarantee"
of Article 52 of the Constitution inter alia means that various
types of social assistance are guaranteed for the persons on the
bases that are established in laws; separate types of social
assistance, persons who are granted social assistance, the bases
and conditions of granting and paying the social assistance,
amounts thereof may, according to the Constitution, be set solely
by the law; the legal regulation of the social assistance
relations is one of the most important guarantees of the
constitutional right to social assistance.
4. Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution provides:
"Each human being may freely choose a job or business, and shall
have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at
work, to receive fair pay for work and social security in the
event of unemployment".
5. The constitutional right to proper, safe and healthy
working conditions means inter alia that every employee has the
right to such working conditions which would not exert negative
influence on his life, health, and which would be in line with
the requirements of security and hygiene (Constitutional Court
ruling of 9 April 2002). At the same time, this constitutional
right implies the duty of the employer to ensure the suitability,
safety and healthiness of working conditions. A human right to
proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, which stems from the
Constitution, inter alia Paragraph 1 of its Article 48, does not
deny also the duty of every employee to follow the requirements
of safety at work.
It needs to be noted that the provision of Paragraph 1 of
Article 48 of the Constitution, under which each human being
shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions
at work, implies also the duty of the state to establish the
legal regulation, under which the legal preconditions to
implement this right would be created. While doing so, the state
must also establish the effective mechanisms of the
implementation control of this right.
6. In its rulings, the Constitutional Court has held more
than once that the Constitution is an integral act; the norms and
principles of the Constitution constitute a harmonious system, it
is not permitted to construe any provision of the Constitution so
that the content of any other constitutional provision might be
distorted or denied, since thus the essence of the entire
constitutional regulation would be distorted, the balance of
values entrenched in the Constitution would be disturbed.
7. While construing Article 52 of the Constitution together
with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, under which
each human being may freely choose a job or business, and shall
have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at
work, to receive inter alia social security in the event of
unemployment, as well as with Paragraph 1 of Article 53 of the
Constitution, under which the state shall also take care of
people's health, and, also taking account of the constitutional
principle of justice and the imperative of social harmony which
is enshrined in the Constitution, it needs to be held that the
state is constitutionally obligated to render respective social
assistance to the person whose health was impaired as a result of
improper, unsafe, and unhealthy working conditions (including
accidents at work and occupational diseases) and to secure
provision of corresponding social assistance; the legislator may
choose and consolidate in laws a model of provision of the said
assistance, inter alia various forms thereof (state, private,
etc.), however, it is not permitted to establish any such legal
regulation which would create preconditions for appearance of a
situation where a person whose health was impaired as a result of
improper, unsafe, and unhealthy working conditions (including
accidents at work and occupational diseases) would not receive
any respective social assistance.
8. While taking account of various factors, inter alia the
resources, material and financial capabilities of the state and
society, and regulating the relations linked to rendering social
assistance to a person whose health was impaired as a result of
improper, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions (including
accidents at work and occupational diseases) in a corresponding
manner, the legislator has wide discretion. Certain grounds,
conditions and amounts of allocation and payment of such social
assistance which are established by the law may be varied ones.
It also needs to be noted that when regulating relations linked
to rendering social assistance to the person whose health was
impaired as a result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy working
conditions (including accidents at work and occupational
diseases), one must heed the norms and principles of the
Constitution, inter alia the duty of the state established in
Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof to ensure the right of every
human being to have proper, safe and healthy working conditions,
and social security in the event of unemployment, the duty of the
state, which is enshrined in Article 52, to guarantee to citizens
the right to receive old age and disability pensions as well as
social assistance in the event of unemployment, sickness,
widowhood, loss of the breadwinner, the duty of the state, which
is enshrined in Paragraph 1 of Article 53, to take care of
people's health, as well as the constitutional principles of
equal rights of all persons and of proportionality. It is not
permitted to establish any such legal regulation whereby the
appearance of the right of a person whose health was impaired as
a result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions
(including accidents at work and occupational diseases) to social
assistance, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, would be
related to constitutionally unreasoned conditions, subjective
decisions of certain institutions or officials, or other
conditions which could not cause such impairment of the person's
health (let alone the one causing the person's death).
9. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it needs to be emphasised that, under the Constitution,
the legislator also may not establish any such legal regulation
whereby the appearance of the rights of the person, whose health
was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy
working conditions which did not depend (and could not depend) on
the actions and the state of that person (including accidents at
work and occupational diseases) to social assistance would be
related to the state of this person (inter alia his inebriety or
intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances),
when such state of the person did not cause and could not cause
the impairment of his health in general. Upon establishment of
such legal regulation, one would groundlessly make one of the
said basesthe state of the personfor non-provision of the
social assistance, which stems from the Constitution, absolute;
one would also disregard the imperatives which stem from the
Constitution, inter alia Paragraph 1 of its Article 48, Article
52 and Paragraph 1 of Article 53 thereof, and from the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
IV
On the compliance of the provision of Paragraph 2 (wording
of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases and the provision of
Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations Concerning
Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases which were confirmed by Government Resolution No. 309
"On Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance
Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" of 22
March 2004 with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article
48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
1. The Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, disputes the compliance of the provision "accidents
at work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall
also not be recognised as events insured against if upon their
investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence
satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the
insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic
or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the
peculiarities of the technology of work attributed to him by the
insurance payer" (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2
(wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law on Social
Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, to the
extent that those accidents at work or established acute
occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is
established that the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated
from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not
related to the peculiarities of the technology of work attributed
to him by the insurance payer), but the insured person's
inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic
substances was not the reason of the accident at work or
established acute occupational disease, are not recognised as
events insured against, with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the
provision "Each human being <...> shall have the right to have
proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...>
social security in the event of unemployment" of Paragraph 1 of
Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
2. It has been mentioned that the provision of Paragraph 1
of Article 48 of the Constitution, under which each human being
shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions
at work, implies also the duty of the state to establish the
legal regulation, under which the legal preconditions to
implement this right would be created; when regulating relations
linked to rendering social assistance to the person whose health
was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy
working conditions (including accidents at work and occupational
diseases), one must heed the norms and principles of the
Constitution; it is impermissible to establish any such legal
regulation whereby the appearance of the right of a person whose
health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy
working conditions (including accidents at work and occupational
diseases) to social assistance, which is guaranteed by the
Constitution, would be related to constitutionally unreasoned
conditions, subjective decisions of certain institutions or
officials, or other conditions which could not cause such
impairment of the person's health (let alone the one causing the
person's death).
3. In this Constitutional Court ruling it has been also held
that the human right to proper, safe and healthy conditions at
work, which stems from the Constitution, inter alia Paragraph 1
of Article 48 thereof, does not deny also the duty of every
employee to follow the requirements of safety at work. In this
context it needs to be noted that at work every employee must be
sober and not intoxicated from narcotic, toxic and psychotropic
substances.
The Constitutional Court has held: alcoholism is a
universally recognised social evil; drunkenness of a person or
his intoxication through narcotic or toxic substances negatively
affects the human being (he is incapable of controlling himself,
he perceives the occurring situation inadequately, co-ordination
of his actions and his self-possession are slackened, frequently
due to such intoxication various negative effects occur, due to
it laws are violated (Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December
1997); consumption of alcohol may cause universally known
negative consequences to the human health, public order and
security of members of society, as well as to other values which
are protected and defended by law (Constitutional Court ruling of
21 January 2008).
4. In this Constitutional Court ruling it has also been held
that, under the Constitution, inter alia Paragraph 1 of Article
48 and Article 52 thereof, the legislator may not establish any
such legal regulation whereby the appearance of the right of the
person, whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe
and unhealthy working conditions which did not depend (and could
not depend) on the actions and state of that person (including
accidents at work and occupational diseases), to social
assistance would be related to the state of this person (inter
alia his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or
psychotropic substances), when such state of the person did not
cause and could not cause the impairment of his health in
general.
5. It has been mentioned that under the legal regulation
enshrined in the provision "accidents at work <...> or
established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
recognised as events insured against if upon their investigation
it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least
one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was
inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic
substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the
technology of work attributed to him by the insurance payer"
(wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May
2005) of Article 7 of the Law, accidents at work or established
acute occupational diseases are not recognised as events insured
against both in the cases when the insured person was inebriated
or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances
(if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology
of work attributed to him by the insurance payer), and the
accident at work or the insured person's falling ill with an
acute occupational disease was caused namely by his inebriety or
intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and
in the cases when the insured person was inebriated or
intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if
this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of
work attributed to him by the insurance payer), but the accident
at work or the insured person's falling ill with an acute
occupational disease was caused not by his inebriety or
intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances.
5.1. The legal regulation which is enshrined in the disputed
provision of the Law, to the extent that it provides that the
accidents at work or the established acute occupational diseases
are not recognised as events insured against when the insured
person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or
psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the
peculiarities of the technology of work attributed to him by the
insurance payer), and the accident at work or the insured
person's falling ill with an acute occupational disease was
caused namely by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic,
toxic or psychotropic substances, is constitutionally grounded,
meets the constitutional principles of proportionality and
justice and does not deviate from the notion of social assistance
which is enshrined in the Constitution.
5.2. One is to differently assess the legal regulation
enshrined in the disputed provision of the Law to the extent that
it provides that the accidents at work or the established acute
occupational diseases are not recognised as events insured
against when the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated
from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not
related to the peculiarities of the technology of work attributed
to him by the insurance payer), but the accident at work or the
insured person's falling ill with an acute occupational disease
was caused not by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic,
toxic or psychotropic substances, but by improper, unsafe, and
unhealthy working conditions. By such legal regulation, one makes
absolute one of the circumstances of recognition of the accident
at work or falling ill with an acute occupational disease as an
event not insured againstthe state of the insured person
(inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic
substances) irrespective of whether the accident at work happened
or the insured person fell ill with an acute occupational disease
as a result of improper, unsafe, and unhealthy working conditions
which were not caused or could not be caused by actions and/or
state of this person. Under such legal regulation, an accident at
work or falling ill with an acute occupational disease is not
recognised as an event insured against also in the case, when the
health of the insured person who was inebriated or intoxicated
from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, was impaired not
as a result of the said state, but as a result of improper,
unsafe, and unhealthy working conditions.
Therefore, such legal regulation is not constitutionally
grounded, it does not comply with the constitutional principles
of proportionality and justice and it denies the right of a
person, whose health was impaired as a result of improper,
unsafe, and unhealthy working conditions, to social assistance
which is enshrined in the Constitution, inter alia in Paragraph 1
of its Article 48 and Article 52 thereof.
6. Taking account of the arguments set forth, a conclusion
is to be drawn that the provision "accidents at work <...> or
established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
recognised as events insured against if upon their investigation
it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least
one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was
inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic
substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the
technology of work attributed to him by the insurance payer"
(wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May
2005) of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at
Work and Occupational Diseases, to the extent that it provides
that those accidents at work or established acute occupational
diseases, upon the investigation of which it is established that
the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic,
toxic or psychotropic substances, however, the insured person's
inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic
substances was not the reason of the accident at work or
established acute occupational disease, are not recognised as
events insured against, is in conflict with the provision "Each
human being <...> shall have the right to have proper, safe and
healthy conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in
the event of unemployment" of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and
Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
7. It has been mentioned that the petitioner disputes the
compliance of the provision "Accidents at work, or established
acute occupational diseases shall also not be recognised as
events insured against, if upon their investigation it is
established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of
the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was
inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic
substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the
technology of work attributed to him by the insurance payer" of
Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations approved by
Government Resolution No. 309 of 22 March 2004, in the aspect
that that those accidents at work or established acute
occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is
established that the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated
from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not
related to the peculiarities of the technology of work attributed
to him by the insurance payer), but the insured person's
inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic
substances was not the reason of the accident at work or
established acute occupational disease, are not recognised as
events insured against, with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the
provision "Each human being <...> shall have the right to have
proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...>
social security in the event of unemployment" of Paragraph 1 of
Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
8. After one compares the provision "Accidents at work, or
established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
recognised as events insured against, if upon their investigation
it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least
one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was
inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic
substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the
technology of work attributed to him by the insurance payer" of
Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations approved by
Government Resolution No. 309 of 22 March 2004 with the provision
"accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational
diseases shall also not be recognised as events insured against
if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their
occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances:
(1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from
narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not
related to the peculiarities of the technology of work attributed
to him by the insurance payer" (wording of 11 November 2003) of
Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law, it
is obvious that these provisions establish identical legal
regulation.
9. After it has been held that the provision "accidents at
work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall also
not be recognised as events insured against if upon their
investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence
satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the
insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic
or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the
peculiarities of the technology of work attributed to him by the
insurance payer" (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2
(wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law, to the extent
that it provides that those accidents at work or established
acute occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it
is established that the insured person was inebriated or
intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances,
however, the insured person's inebriety or intoxication from
narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances was not the reason of
the accident at work or established acute occupational disease,
are not recognised as events insured against, is in conflict with
the provision "Each human being <...> shall have the right to
have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive
<...> social security in the event of unemployment" of Paragraph
1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it is
to be held that also the provision "Accidents at work, or
established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
recognised as events insured against, if upon their investigation
it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least
one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was
inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic
substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the
technology of work attributed to him by the insurance payer" of
Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations Concerning
Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases confirmed by Government Resolution No. 309 "On
Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance
Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" of 22
March 2004 is in conflict with the provision "Each human being
<...> shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy
conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in the event
of unemployment" of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of
the Constitution, and with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law.
10. Having held that the disputed provision (wording of 11
November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article
7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases and the disputed provision of Item 13
(wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations Concerning Social
Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases confirmed by Government Resolution No. 309 "On
Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance
Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" of 22
March 2004 to the specified extent are in conflict with the
provision "Each human being <...> shall have the right to have
proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...>
social security in the event of unemployment" of Paragraph 1 of
Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the
Constitutional Court will not further investigate the compliance
of the disputed provisions of the legal acts to the specified
extent with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution.
Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has passed
the following
ruling:
1. To recognise that the provision "accidents at work <...>
or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
recognised as events insured against if upon their investigation
it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least
one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was
inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic
substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the
technology of work attributed to him by the insurance payer"
(wording of 11 November 2003, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
2003, No. 114-5114) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005,
Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2005, No. 71-2557) of Article
7 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Social Insurance of
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, to the extent that
it provides that those accidents at work or established acute
occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is
established that the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated
from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, however, the
insured person's inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic
or psychotropic substances was not the reason of the accident at
work or established acute occupational disease, are not
recognised as events insured against, is in conflict with the
provision "Each human being <...> shall have the right to have
proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...>
social security in the event of unemployment" of Paragraph 1 of
Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, and with the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law.
2. To recognise that the provision "Accidents at work, or
established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
recognised as events insured against, if upon their investigation
it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least
one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was
inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic
substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the
technology of work attributed to him by the insurance payer" of
Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004, Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 2004, No. 44-1448) of the Regulations Concerning Social
Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases confirmed by Resolution of the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania No. 309 "On Confirmation of the Regulations
Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases" of 22 March 2004, to the extent that it
provides that those accidents at work or established acute
occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is
established that the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated
from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, however, the
insured person's inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic
or psychotropic substances was not the reason of the accident at
work or established acute occupational disease, are not
recognised as events insured against, is in conflict with the
provision "Each human being <...> shall have the right to have
proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...>
social security in the event of unemployment" of Paragraph 1 of
Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, and with the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law.
This ruling of the Constitutional Court is final and not
subject to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated in the name of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court:
Armanas Abramavičius
Toma Birmontienė
Pranas Kuconis
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Ramutė Ruškytė
Egidijus Šileikis
Algirdas Taminskas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis