Cases No. 41/2000, 47/2001-08/2003-20/2003-32/2003-38/2003, 7/03-
41/03-40/04-46/04-5/05-7/05-17/05, 35/04-37/04-72/06, 38/04-39/
04, 06/05-08/05, 09/06-30/06-01/07-30/08, 15/98, 33/03
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULINGS OF 25 NOVEMBER 2002, 3
DECEMBER 2003, 16 JANUARY 2006, 26 SEPTEMBER 2007, 22
OCTOBER 2007, 22 NOVEMBER 2007, 24 DECEMBER 2008, AND
OF THE DECISION OF 15 JANUARY 2009
20 April 2010
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 representatives of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner which submitted the
petition requesting to construe the provisions of the
Constitutional Court rulings of 25 November 2002, 3 December
2003, 16 January 2006, 26 September 2007, 22 October 2007, 22
November 2007, 24 December 2008, and of the decision of 15
January 2009, who were Rimantas Jonas Dagys, Chairman of the
Seimas Committee on Social Affairs and Labour, Kęstutis
Glaveckas, Chairman of the Seimas Committee on Budget and
Finance, as well as Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis and Donatas
Jankauskas, Members of the Seimas,
pursuant to Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania, on 7 April 2010, in the
public Court hearing considered the petition set forth in
Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania No. XI-524
of 3 December 2009 requesting to construe certain provisions of
the Constitutional Court rulings of 25 November 2002, 3 December
2003, 16 January 2006, 26 September 2007, 22 October 2007, 22
November 2007, 24 December 2008, and of the decision of 15
January 2009.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
1. On 25 November 2002, in constitutional justice case No.
41/2000 the Constitutional Court adopted the Ruling "On the
compliance of Paragraph 2 of Article 69 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Diplomatic Service, Item 9 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 4 (wording of 16 March 2000) of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on State Social Insurance and Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 2 (wording of 16 December 1999) and Article 23 (wordings
of 21 December 1994, 21 December 2000 and 8 May 2001) of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 113-5057; hereinafter referred to as
the Constitutional Court ruling of 25 November 2002).
The Seimas, the petitioner, requests to construe whether the
provision "The legal regulation under which the person cannot
freely choose an occupation and business due to the fact that
upon the implementation of this right he would not be paid the
awarded old age pension or part thereof which was paid until
then, also must be considered as a restriction of an opportunity
to freely choose an occupation or business" of Item 2.2 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 25 November 2002 is applied to working pensioners only
under normal economic conditions, and whether one must heed this
provision also when there is an extreme situation in the state
(economic crisis, natural disaster etc.); whether the provision
"While establishing the amounts of old age pensions by law, one
is to take into consideration the fact as to the amount of
contributions that had been paid when the material preconditions
for the payment of these pensions are created" of Item 2.3 is
always applied, or whether it is possible to disregard this
provision when there is an extreme situation in the state
(economic crisis, natural disaster etc.); whether the provisions
"The person who meets the conditions established by law in order
to receive the old age pension, and who has been awarded and paid
this pension, has the right to a monetary payment of a respective
amount, i.e. the right to possession. Under Article 23 of the
Constitution, this right must be protected and safeguarded. It
needs to be noted that the old age pension is linked with
possession in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human
Rights as well (European Court of Human Rights, Judgment in the
case Wessels-Bergervoet v. Netherlands of 4 June 2002)" of Item
2.3 are applied only under normal economic conditions and
entrench the mechanism of protection of the pension as the right
of possession, or whether one must follow such treatment also in
cases when there is an extreme situation in the state (economic
crisis, natural disaster etc.) and it is decided to reduce
pensions by not establishing any mechanisms of compensation for
such reduction.
2. On 3 December 2003, in constitutional justice case No.
47/2001-08/2003-20/2003-32/2003-38/2003 the Constitutional Court
adopted the Ruling "On the compliance of the provisions of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions, the
Republic of Lithuania Law on State Pensions, and the Republic of
Lithuania Law 'On the Amendment and Supplement of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions' with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as on the
compliance of Item 84 of the Regulations of Granting and Payment
of State Social Insurance Pensions as approved by Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1156 of 18 November 1994
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph
4 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 45 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on State Social Insurance Pensions" (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2003, No. 115-5221; hereinafter
referred to as the Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December
2003).
The Seimas, the petitioner, requests to construe whether the
provision that when there is an extreme situation in the state
(economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) "the legal regulation of
pensionary relations may be corrected also by reducing pensions
to the extent that it is necessary to ensure vitally important
interests of society and protect other constitutional values" of
Item 1.9 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December 2003 means that the
reduction of pensions must be co-ordinated in proportion with
other measures (application of tax concessions, preservation of
the existing jobs and creation of new ones, attraction of
investments to jobs, non-reduction of the fund of remuneration
for work etc.) so that it would not violate vitally important
interests of society and would protect other constitutional
values; whether the provision "even in such extraordinary cases
it is not permitted that pensions be reduced in violation of the
balance between the interests of the person and society; such
reduction of pensions must be in line with the constitutional
principle of proportionality" of Item 1.9 means that the
reduction of pensions may not be different to separate groups of
persons, the reduction of pensions must be proportionate to the
amounts of taxes and reduction of remuneration for work and that
no measures discriminating one or another group of society may be
applied; whether the provision "if the protection of legitimate
expectations, legal certainty and legal security of the person
were not ensured, the confidence of the person in the state and
law would not be ensured" of Item 3.2 is always applied, or
whether it is allowed to disregard this provision when there is a
grave economic situation in the state; whether the provisions
that, while reorganising the system of pensionary maintenance,
"<
> the Constitution must be observed in every case. The system
of pensions may be reorganised only by law, only guaranteeing the
old age and disability pensions provided for by the Constitution,
as well as observing undertaken obligations by the state, which
are not in conflict with Constitution, to pay corresponding
payments to persons who meet the requirements established by the
law. If, while reorganising the pensionary system, the pensions
established by the laws which are not directly specified in
Article 52 of the Constitution were eliminated, or the legal
regulation of these pensions were amended in essence, the
legislator would be obligated to establish a just mechanism for
compensation of the existing losses to the persons who had been
granted and paid such pensions" of Item 3.3 imply a duty for the
legislator to apply the compensation mechanisms after an extreme
situation in the state (economic crisis, natural disaster etc.)
is over, or whether it must also be applied during such a
situation; whether the provision "principle of equality of
persons before the law would be violated if a certain group of
persons, which a legal norm is addressed to, would be treated in
a different manner comparing to other addressees of the same
norm, though there exist no differences of such nature and scope
between those two groups, which would objectively justify this
different treatment" of Item 5.2 means that when there is an
extreme situation in the state (economic crisis, natural
disaster, etc.) it is not allowed in the course of reduction of
remunerations or pensions to apply different amounts with regard
to the same social groups (e.g., with regard to working and non-
working pensioners).
3. On 16 January 2006, in constitutional justice case No.
7/03-41/03-40/04-46/04-5/05-7/05-17/05 the Constitutional Court
adopted the Ruling "On the compliance of Paragraph 4 (wording of
11 September 2001) of Article 131 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania, on the compliance of Paragraph 5
(wordings of 10 April 2003 and 16 September 2003) of Article 234,
Paragraph 2 (wordings of 10 April 2003 and 16 September 2003) of
Article 244, Article 407 (wording of 19 June 2003), Paragraph 1
(wording of 14 March 2002) of Article 408, Paragraphs 2 and 3
(wording of 14 March 2002) of Article 412, Paragraph 5 (wording
of 14 March 2002) of Article 413 and Paragraph 2 (wording of 14
March 2002) of Article 414 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of
the Republic of Lithuania with the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania and on the petitions of the Šiauliai District Local
Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Article
410 (wording of 14 March 2002) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
of the Republic of Lithuania is not in conflict with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2006, No. 7-254; hereinafter referred to as the
Constitutional Court ruling of 16 January 2006).
The Seimas, the petitioner, requests to construe whether the
following provisions of Item 4 of Chapter I of the reasoning part
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 16 January 2006, which are:
"The constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law
implies various requirements for the legislator and other law-
making entities: the law-making entities may pass legal acts only
without exceeding their powers; the requirements established in
legal acts must be based on the provisions of general type (legal
norms and principles) which can be applied in regard to all the
specified subjects of respective legal relations; the
differentiated legal regulation must be based only on objective
differences of the situation of subjects of public relations
regulated by respective legal acts; in order to ensure that the
subjects of legal relations are aware of requirements put forward
to them by law, the legal norms must be established in advance,
the legal acts must be published officially, they must be public
and accessible; the legal regulation established in laws and
other legal acts must be clear, easy to understand, consistent,
formulas in the legal acts must be explicit, consistency and
internal harmony of the legal system must be ensured, the legal
acts may not contain any provisions, which at the same time
regulate the same public relations in a different manner; in
order that subjects of legal relations could orient their
behaviour according to the requirements of law, the legal
regulation must be relatively stable; the legal acts may not
require the impossible (lex non cogit ad impossibilia); the power
of the legal acts is prospective, while retrospective validity of
the laws and other legal acts is not permitted (lex retro non
agit) unless the legal act mitigates the situation of the subject
of legal relations and does not injure other subjects of legal
relations by the same (lex benignior retro agit); violations of
law, for which liability is established in legal acts, must be
clearly defined; when setting legal restrictions and liability
for violations of law, one must pay heed to the requirement of
reasonableness and the principle of proportionality, according to
which the established legal measures are to be necessary in a
democratic society and suitable for achieving legitimate and
universally important objectives (there must be a balance between
the objectives and measures), they may not restrict the rights of
the person more than it is necessary in order to achieve the said
objectives, and if these legal measures are related to the
sanctions for the violation of law, in such case the
aforementioned sanctions must be proportionate to the committed
violation of law; when legally regulating public relations it is
compulsory to pay heed to the requirements of natural justice
comprising inter alia the necessity to ensure the equality of
persons before the law, the court and state institutions and
officials; when issuing legal acts, one must pay heed to
procedural law-making requirements, including those established
by the law-making entity itself; etc." mean that these
requirements must be heeded in all situations, or, quite to the
contrary, whether various requirements may be applied in a varied
manner, i.e. in one manner when there is a normal situation in
the state, and in a different manner when there is essential
deterioration in the economic and financial situation of the
state.
4. On 26 September 2007, in constitutional justice case No.
35/04-37/04-72/06 the Constitutional Court adopted the Ruling "On
the compliance of Paragraph 3 of Article 4 (wording of 4 November
2004), Paragraph 2 of Article 8 (wording of 4 November 2004) and
Paragraphs 3 and 4 (wordings of 4 July 2002 and 7 October 2003)
of Article 34 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social
Insurance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania"
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2007, No. 102-4171;
hereinafter referred to as the Constitutional Court ruling of 26
September 2007).
The Seimas, the petitioner, requests to construe whether the
provision "the said legal regulation should create preconditions
to distribute <
> the corresponding burden that has fallen upon
the state among members of society, however, it must be
distributed in such a manner that the fulfilment of the duty to
pay state social insurance contributions would not become an
overly heavy burden and the person, due to the fact that he is
fulfilling this duty, would not become the one who needs social
assistance" of Item 3 of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 26 September 2007 is applied only
under normal economic conditions, and whether one must heed this
provision also when there is an extreme situation in the state
(economic crisis, natural disaster etc.); whether the provision
"the said legal regulation should create preconditions to
distribute (of course, by taking account inter alia of the
constitutional principle of solidarity, the constitutional
imperatives of social harmony and justice) the corresponding
burden that has fallen upon the state among members of society"
thereof means that the constitutional imperatives of solidarity,
social harmony and justice must be followed by redistributing,
among all members of society, the burden that falls upon the
state not only under normal conditions, but also when there is an
essential change in the economic and financial situation of the
state, when due to special circumstances (economic crisis,
natural disaster etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic
and financial situation in the state.
5. On 22 October 2007, in constitutional justice case No.
38/04-39/04 the Constitutional Court adopted the Ruling "On the
compliance of Article 4 (wordings of 2 July 2002, 4 November
2004, 19 May 2005 and 8 June 2006) of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on the State Pensions of Judges with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania" (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2007,
No. 110-4511; hereinafter referred to as the Constitutional Court
ruling of 22 October 2007).
The Seimas, the petitioner, requests to construe whether the
provision "the fact how the person, while being able to work and
economically active, contributed to the accumulation of the funds
of the state social insurance, has to be significant for the size
of his own old age pension of the state social insurance; a
person, who by his contributions contributed to the accumulation
of the funds of the state social insurance more, must have
tangible benefit" of Item 2 of Chapter III of the reasoning part
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October 2007 must be
applied only when there is a normal situation in the state, or
whether this provision must be heeded also when due to an
essentially deteriorated economic and financial situation of the
state or other special situation one has to reduce, temporarily
and proportionately, the amount of the state social insurance
old-age pension; the provision "under the Constitution, it is not
permitted to establish any such legal regulation under which an
opportunity for the person, who has been granted and paid the old
age pension, would be restricted, due to this, to freely choose
an occupation and business, although he meets the conditions
provided for by law so that he would have a certain occupation or
conduct certain business; the legal regulation under which the
person cannot freely choose an occupation and business due to the
fact that upon the implementation of this right he would not be
paid the granted old age pension or part thereof which was paid
until then, also must be considered as a restriction of an
opportunity to freely choose an occupation or business" of Item 5
is applied only when there is a normal economic situation in the
state, or whether one must apply it also in cases when there is
an essential change in the economic and financial situation of
the state, when due to special circumstances (economic crisis,
natural disaster etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic
and financial situation in the state; whether the provision "the
social orientation of the State of Lithuania which is
consolidated in the Constitution obliges the state to pay heed to
the guarantees of pensions (inter alia state pensions) and other
social (material) guarantees which, by the way, stem not only
from Article 52 of the Constitution, but also from other
provisions of the Constitution, or, for example, from Paragraph 2
of Article 30, Articles 38, 39, 41, 48, Paragraph 1 of Article 51
and Article 146 thereof, the imperative of reality, thus, it
obliges to revise once established (and applied) social
(material) guarantees, in particular if they are linked with
certain periodic payments (such as pensions), to revise (increase
their sizes) in particular if economic or social situation
undergoes such changes so that the said established (and applied)
guarantees depreciate a lot, moreover, if they become nominal in
general (in this case, one must also have in mind the reservation
regarding the proportionality and temporary reduction of the
payments when it is necessary for the protection of other
constitutional values which is specified in this and other
Constitutional Court rulings)" of Item 6 thereof is applied also
in cases when there is an extreme situation in the state
(economic crisis, natural disaster etc.); whether the provision
"when the economic and financial situation of the country
deteriorates considerably, when due to particular circumstances
(economic crisis, natural disasters, etc.), an extremely
difficult economic and financial situation has occurred in the
state" of Item 9.2 of Chapter IV means that this must be
confirmed by a resolution of the Government on the grounds of
state economic and financial indicators, and whether such
economic and financial indicators must be confirmed annually as
long as such a situation continues to exist; the provision that
in case there is lack of funds in the state due to special
circumstances "<
> the legislator may change the legal regulation
which establishes the salaries to various persons, and
consolidate the legal regulation on the salaries which would be
less favourable to these persons, if it is necessary in order to
ensure the vital interests of society and the state and to
protect other constitutional values" of Item 9.2 of Chapter IV
must be applied by heeding the requirements of the principle of
proportionality, while alongside co-ordinating it with
proportionate reduction of pensions and other social allowances,
since the amount of contributions to the State Social Insurance
Fund also depends upon the amount of remuneration for work, or
whether it is possible to disregard such co-ordination; whether
the provision "when the economic and financial situation of the
country deteriorates considerably, when due to particular
circumstances (economic crisis, natural disasters, etc.), an
extremely difficult economic and financial situation has occurred
in the state" of Item 9.2 of Chapter IV means that, under such
special circumstances, the reduction of remunerations must be
performed while following the requirement of proportionality, i.
e. remunerations must be reduced to various persons equally in a
proportionate manner, or whether different proportions can be
established for separate groups of persons.
6. On 22 November 2007, in constitutional justice case No.
06/05-08/05 the Constitutional Court adopted the Ruling "On the
compliance of Section 8 'The Health Care of Officers and Social
Guarantees Related Thereto' (wording of 29 April 2003) of Chapter
II, inter alia Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003), of the
Interior Service Statute approved by the Republic of Lithuania
Law on the Approval of the Interior Service Statute with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as on the
compliance of the Conditions under Which Persons are Insured by
State Funds and of Compensation Payment upon Their Injury or
Death in the Line of Duty (wording of 23 December 2002), inter
alia Items 14, 15 (wording of 23 December 2002) thereof, approved
by Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No.
530 'On the Conditions under Which Persons are Insured by State
Funds and of Compensation Payment upon Their Injury or Death in
the Line of Duty' of 5 December 1991 (wording of 23 December
2002) with Article 40 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the Interior
Service Statute approved by the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Approval of the Interior Service Statute" (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2007, No. 121-4965, correctionOfficial Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2007, No. 125; hereinafter referred to as the
Constitutional Court ruling of 22 November 2007).
The Seimas, the petitioner, requests to construe whether the
provision "any correction of the social policy, the
reorganisation of the system of social guarantees or of
individual social guarantees of the state should be
constitutionally grounded; if in the course of reorganisation of
the system of social guarantees or the structure of individual
social guarantees the extent of social guarantees is reduced, let
alone certain social guarantees disappear, a mechanism of just
compensation of incurred losses should be established to the
individuals to whom those social guarantees were reasonably
established" of Item 8 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 22 November 2007 means that such
mechanism of compensation for incurred losses must be established
under normal economic conditions, and providing such correction
of the state social policy, the reorganisation of the system of
social guarantees or of the structure of individual social
guarantees is performed during a crisis, then it is not followed
by a certain compensation applied at that time or later (the
compensation which will be in effect after the crisis); whether
this provision means that the constitutional doctrine how
pensions must be treated when the system of pensions is
reorganised when there is no crisis is not identical to the
constitutional doctrine establishing the behaviour of the
legislator and other subjects of law in reorganising the system
of pensions when there is an essential change in the economic and
financial situation of the state, when due to special
circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) there
occurs an especially grave economic and financial situation in
the state; whether the provision "if those guarantees have to
compensate the losses, which an individual may incur due to his
own activities (inter alia due to his service to the state), a
period should also be provided so that it would be sufficient to
those individuals (being in respective work and executing
respective service according to the preceding legal regulation
entitling to respective social guarantees) to prepare for
respective changes" means that both under normal circumstances
and when there is an essential change in the economic and
financial situation of the state, when due to special
circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) there
occurs an especially grave economic and financial situation in
the state, the legislator must establish a sufficient time period
so that the persons might be able to prepare for the provided
changes; whether the provision "the social orientation of the
state consolidated in the Constitution generally obligates the
state to respect the imperative of substantiality of guarantees
of social (material) character, thus obligates to respectively
revise (increase the sizes) of social (material) guarantees once
established (and applied), if economic, social situation changes
so that those established (and applied) guarantees depreciate
considerably, moreover, if they generally become nominal
(herewith making an exception regarding a proportional and
provisional reduction of benefits, whenever necessary for the
protection of other constitutional values)" means that even when
there is an extreme situation in the state (economic crisis,
natural disaster etc.) and due to this proportionately and
temporarily payments are reduced, one must pay attention to the
fact that such payments would not become only nominal.
7. On 24 December 2008, in constitutional justice case No.
09/06-30/06-01/07-30/08 the Constitutional Court adopted the
Ruling "On the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 13 July
2000 and 19 May 2005) of Article 3, Paragraph 5 (wording of 21
December 2000) of Article 11 and Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 May
2005) of Article 11 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the State
Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special
Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the
Prosecutor's Office, the Department of Prisons and of the
Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the
Latter and That of Paragraph 12 (wording of 18 January 2007) of
Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Pensions of
Officials and Servicemen with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania" (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2008, No. 150-
6106; hereinafter referred to as the Constitutional Court ruling
of 24 December 2008).
The Seimas, the petitioner, requests to construe whether the
provisions "the right to demand for the payments of pensionary
maintenance which are established by the Constitution or laws
that are not in conflict with the latter, arises from Article 52
of the Constitution, while under Article 23 of the Constitution
the proprietary aspects of this right are defended
(Constitutional Court rulings of 4 July 2003, 3 December 2003, 13
December 2004 and 22 October 2007). The said circumstance
determines the specific character of the defence of this acquired
right according to Article 23 of the Constitution. This specific
character inter alia means that in case a question arises as to
the defence of the acquired right under Article 23 of the
Constitution, first of all it should be established whether the
requirement to pay the pension is based on Article 52 of the
Constitution and/or other norms of the Constitution
(Constitutional Court ruling of 4 July 2003)" of Item 4 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 24 December 2008 mean that even when there is an
essential change in the economic and financial situation of the
state, when due to special circumstances (economic crisis,
natural disaster etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic
and financial situation in the state, one must heed the principle
of protection of the acquired right under Article 23 of the
Constitution and seek a compensation mechanism in order to
implement this principle; whether the provision "It needs to be
noted that even in such extraordinary cases it is not permitted
that pensions be reduced in violation of the balance between the
interests of the person and society; such reduction of pensions
must be in line with the constitutional principle of
proportionality (Constitutional Court rulings of 4 July 2003 and
3 December 2003)" of Item 4 means that when there is an essential
change in the economic and financial situation of the state, when
due to special circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster
etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic and financial
situation in the state, it is not allowed to reduce pensions
without prior complex assessment of all interests of an
individual and society and without applying the principles of
justice, reasonableness, proportionality and legal certainty;
whether the provision of Item 8.6 that justice "may be
implemented by ensuring certain equilibrium of interests, by
escaping fortuity and arbitrariness, instability of social life
and conflict of interests (Constitutional Court ruling of 3
December 2003)" means that when due to special circumstances
(economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) there occurs an
especially grave economic and financial situation in the state,
in the course of adoption of decisions to reduce remunerations
and pensions one must avoid fortuity and arbitrariness,
instability of social life and conflict of interests; whether the
issues of increase or reduction of burden of direct and indirect
taxes for this purpose, those of fairer distribution of the
burden of taxes which falls upon labour and capital, those of
increase and reduction of remunerations and pensions and other
social allowances must be solved in a complex manner, by taking
account of the constitutional requirements of justice, solidarity
and proportionality; whether the provision "the constitutional
principle of equality of all persons before the law would be
violated when a certain group of people to which the legal norm
is ascribed, if compared to other addressees of the same legal
norm, were treated differently, even though there are not any
differences in their character and extent between these groups
that such an uneven treatment would be objectively justified
(Constitutional Court rulings of 20 November 1996, 30 December
2003, 13 December 2004 and 26 September 2007)" of Item 10 means
that it is not allowed either under normal, or under essentially
deteriorated economic and financial conditions of the state to
apply coefficients of different sizes with regard to persons of
the same social group in the course of reduction of remunerations
and pensions.
8. On 15 January 2009, the Constitutional Court adopted the
Decision "On the construction of provisions of the Ruling of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania 'On the
compliance of Part 1 of Article 13 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on the Working Conditions of Members of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania' of 9 November 1999 and Those of the Ruling of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania 'On the
compliance of Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 62, Paragraph 4
(wording of 11 July 1996) of Article 69 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Constitutional Court and Paragraph 3
(wording of 24 January 2002) of Article 11, Paragraph 2 (wording
of 24 January 2002) of Article 96 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Courts with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania'
of 28 March 2006" (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No.
6-170; hereinafter also referred to as the Constitutional Court
decision of 15 January 2009).
The Seimas, the petitioner, requests to construe whether the
provision "the collection of the state budget revenue is
disordered to the extent that due to this the state is unable to
perform the obligations undertaken by it, and such situation in
the state is not short-termed" of Item 10 of Chapter IV of the
Constitutional Court decision of 15 January 2009 includes the
entire budget year, or a longer period; whether the provision
"<
> when due to an extremely difficult economic and financial
situation in the state the legislator adopts a decision to reduce
the remuneration for work of officials and other state servants
(employees) of the institutions that are funded from state and
municipal budgets, it must be ascertained that the economic and
financial situation of the state is so difficult that it calls
for a necessity to reduce the remuneration for work of the said
officials and state servants (employees). <
> such reduction of
the remuneration for work must be temporary and grounded upon the
circumstances of the extremely difficult economic and financial
situation in the state" thereof means that the temporary
reduction of the remuneration for work must be continually
corrected during the budget year by taking account of the
collection plan of the state budget revenues, or whether it must
be corrected during a two- or three-year period, or even during a
longer period (until the short-term crisis in the state is over).
II
The representatives of the Seimas, the petitioner, who were
R. J. Dagys, Chairman of the Seimas Committee on Social Affairs
and Labour, K. Glaveckas, Chairman of the Seimas Committee on
Budget and Finance, as well as V. P. Andriukaitis and D.
Jankauskas, Members of the Seimas, explained the reasons which
prompted the Seimas to request construction of the aforementioned
provisions of the rulings and the decision of the Constitutional
Court and answered to questions given by the justices of the
Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The powers of the Constitutional Court to officially
construe its own rulings are entrenched in the Law on the
Constitutional Court (Article 61). Paragraph 1 of Article 61 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court provides that a ruling of the
Constitutional Court may be officially construed by the
Constitutional Court at the request of the parties to the case,
of other institutions or persons to whom it was sent, or on its
own initiative.
The petition requesting to construe the Constitutional Court
rulings of 25 November 2002, 3 December 2003, 16 January 2006, 26
September 2007, 22 October 2007, 22 November 2007, and 24
December 2008 was submitted by the Seimas. The Seimas was the
party concerned in the constitutional justice cases in which the
rulings, whose construction is requested, were passed. In
addition, these rulings, according to Paragraph 1 of Article 60
of the Law on the Constitutional Court, are sent inter alia to
the Seimas. Thus, under Paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the Law on
Constitutional Court, the Seimas has the right to apply to the
Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to construe the
provisions of the said rulings of the Constitutional Court.
2. The Seimas also requests to construe the Constitutional
Court decision of 15 January 2009 wherein the provisions of the
Constitutional Court rulings of 9 November 1999 and 28 March 2006
were construed. The Constitutional Court has held more than once
that it enjoys powers to construe not only its rulings, but also
its other final acts as well. In this context it needs to be
noted that Constitutional Court has held in its acts more than
once that the decision adopted concerning construction of a
Constitutional Court ruling is inseparable from the
Constitutional Court ruling. Thus, the Constitutional Court may
construe also its decisions on construction of rulings (other
final acts).
The Seimas was the party concerned in the constitutional
justice cases wherein the rulings of 9 November 1999 and 28 March
2006, which were construed in the Constitutional Court decision
of 15 January 2009, were adopted. In addition, this decision was
sent to the Seimas, therefore, under Paragraph 1 of Article 61 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Seimas has the right to
request that the Constitutional Court construe this decision.
3. A decision concerning construction of a Constitutional
Court ruling shall be adopted at a Constitutional Court sitting
as a separate document (Paragraph 2 of Article 61 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court).
4. In its acts the Constitutional Court has held more than
once that the purpose of the institute of construction of
Constitutional Court rulings and other final acts is to reveal
the contents and meaning of corresponding Constitutional Court
rulings or other final acts more broadly and in more detail if it
is necessary in order to ensure proper execution of that
Constitutional Court ruling or other final act so that this
Constitutional Court ruling or other final act would be followed.
5. The Constitutional Court has held more than once that a
ruling of the Constitutional Court is integral; the operational
(resolving) part of a ruling of the Constitutional Court is based
upon the arguments of the operational (resolving) part; while
construing its ruling, the Constitutional Court is bound both by
the content of the part of resolution and that of reasoning of
its ruling; the decision adopted concerning construction of a
Constitutional Court ruling is inseparable from the
Constitutional Court ruling.
6. Under Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court must construe its
ruling without changing its content.
The Constitutional Court has held more than once that this
provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, among other things, means that, while
construing its ruling, the Constitutional Court cannot construe
its content so that the meaning of its provisions, inter alia the
notional entirety of the elements constituting the content of the
ruling, the arguments and reasons upon which that Constitutional
Court ruling is based, is changed, also that the Constitutional
Court may not construe what was not investigated in that
constitutional justice case, subsequent to which the construed
ruling was adopted, either. The Constitutional Court has held
more than once that the consideration of a petition requesting to
construe a Constitutional Court ruling or its other final act
does not imply a new constitutional justice case.
It has also been held in the jurisprudence of the
Constitutional Court more than once that the formula "shall be
final and not subject to appeal" of Paragraph 2 of Article 107 of
the Constitution, which provides that the decisions of the
Constitutional Court on issues ascribed to its competence by the
Constitution shall be final and not subject to appeal, also means
that the Constitutional Court rulings, conclusions and decisions
by which a constitutional justice case is finished, i.e. final
acts of the Constitutional Court, are obligatory to all state
institutions, courts, all enterprises, establishments and
organisations, as well as officials and citizens, including the
Constitutional Court itself: final acts of the Constitutional
Court are obligatory to the Constitutional Court itself, they
restrict the Constitutional Court in the aspect that it may not
change them or review them if there are no constitutional grounds
for that.
7. It is also to be noted that the uniformity and continuity
of the official constitutional doctrine implies a necessity to
construe each construed provision of a Constitutional Court
ruling or its other final act by taking account of the entire
official constitutional doctrinal context, also of other
provisions (explicit and implicit) of the Constitution, which are
related with the provision (provisions) of the Constitution in
the course of construction of which in a Constitutional Court
ruling or its other final act the corresponding official
constitutional doctrine was formulated. The Constitutional Court
has held more than once that no official constitutional doctrinal
provision of a Constitutional Court ruling or its other final act
may be construed in isolation, by ignoring its meaning and
systemic links with the other official constitutional doctrinal
provisions set forth in that Constitutional Court ruling or its
other final act, in other Constitutional Court acts, as well as
with other provisions (explicit and implicit) of the Constitution
(Constitutional Court decisions of 4 July 2008, 15 January 2009,
15 May 2009, 28 October 2009, 6 November 2009 and 18 December
2009).
II
1. The petitioner requests to construe the official
constitutional doctrinal provisions disclosing the constitutional
requirements which must be followed in the course of reduction of
pensions and of the remuneration for work of officials of
institutions which are financed from the funds of state and
municipal budgets (and of other employees who are paid for their
work from the funds of state and municipal budgets) as well as
that of state servants due to the fact that there is an
especially grave economic and financial situation in the state
due to an economic crisis, as well as the doctrinal provisions
regarding an especially grave economic and financial situation in
the state. In the context of these provisions the petitioner also
requests to construe the official constitutional doctrinal
provisions disclosing the content of the constitutional
principles of a state under the rule of law, equality of rights,
justice, proportionality, protection of legitimate expectations,
legal certainty and social solidarity.
2. It has been mentioned that provisions of a Constitutional
Court ruling must be construed by taking account of the entire
official constitutional doctrinal context, also of other
provisions (explicit and implicit) of the Constitution, which are
related with the provision (provisions) of the Constitution in
the course of construction of which in a Constitutional Court
ruling or its other final act the corresponding official
constitutional doctrine was formulated; no official
constitutional doctrinal provision of a Constitutional Court
ruling may be construed in isolation, by ignoring its meaning and
systemic links with the other official constitutional doctrinal
provisions, as well as with other provisions of the Constitution.
3. The official constitutional doctrine regarding reduction
of remunerations and pensions when there is an especially grave
economic and financial situation in the state, as well as the
doctrine of the constitutional principles of a state under the
rule of law, equality of rights, justice, proportionality,
legitimate expectations, legal certainty, and social solidarity,
was formed not only in the Constitutional Court rulings of 25
November 2002, 3 December 2003, 16 January 2006, 26 September
2007, 22 October 2007, 22 November 2007, 24 December 2008 and the
decision of 15 January 2009, whose construction is requested by
the petitioner, but also in other acts of the Constitutional
Court, therefore, the provisions whose construction is requested
are to be construed while taking account of the entire official
constitutional doctrinal context.
4. The Constitution is an act of the supreme legal power.
The Constitution reflects the social contracta democratically
accepted obligation by all the citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania to the current and future generations to live according
to the fundamental rules entrenched in the Constitution and to
obey them in order to ensure the legitimacy of the governing
power, the legitimacy of its decisions, as well as to ensure
human rights and freedoms, so that the concord would exist in the
society. The Constitution as a legal act is expressed in a
certain textual form, and has certain verbal expression; however,
since it is impossible to treat law solely as a text in which
expressis verbis certain legal provisions and rules of behaviour
are set forth, thus, also, it is impossible to treat the
Constitution as a legal reality solely in its textual form, the
Constitution may not be understood only as an aggregate of
explicit provisions; the Constitution shall be an integral and
directly applicable act (Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the
Constitution); the Constitution as a legal reality is comprised
of various provisions, the constitutional norms and the
constitutional principles, which are directly consolidated in
various formulations of the Constitution or derived from them;
some constitutional principles are entrenched in constitutional
norms formulated expressis verbis, others, although not
entrenched therein expressis verbis, are reflected in them and
are derived from the constitutional norms, as well as from other
constitutional principles reflected in these norms, from the
entirety of the constitutional legal regulation, from the meaning
of the Constitution as the act which consolidates and protects
the system of major values of the state community, the civil
Nation, and which provides the guidelines for the entire legal
system; there may not exist and there is no contradiction between
the constitutional principles and the constitutional normsall
the constitutional norms and constitutional principles form a
harmonious system; it is the constitutional principles that
organise all the provisions of the Constitution into a harmonious
entirety, and thus do not permit the existence in the
Constitution of internal contradictions or such an interpretation
thereof which distorts and denies the essence of any provision of
the Constitution, or any value entrenched in and protected by the
Constitution; the constitutional principles reveal not only the
letter, but also the spirit of the Constitutionthe values and
objectives entrenched in the Constitution by the Nation which
chose certain textual form and verbal expression of its
provisions, which defined certain norms of the Constitution, and
which explicitly or implicitly established certain constitutional
legal regulation (Constitutional Court rulings of 25 May 2004 and
13 December 2004).
5. The Constitutional Court has held more than once that the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is a
universal principle, upon which the entire legal system of
Lithuania and the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
itself are based, that the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law is to be construed inseparably from the
striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and
state under the rule of law, which is declared in the Preamble to
the Constitution, and that the content of the aforementioned
constitutional principle reveals itself in various provisions of
the Constitution. The essence of the constitutional principle of
a state under the rule of law is the rule of law. The
constitutional imperative of the rule of law means that the
freedom of state power is limited by law, to which all the
entities of legal relations, including the law-making entities,
must obey. It needs to be emphasised that the discretion of all
the law-making entities is limited by the supreme lawthe
Constitution. All the legal acts, decisions of all the state and
municipal institutions and officials must be in compliance with
and not contradicting to the Constitution.
The constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law is especially capacious, comprising a range of various
interrelated imperatives. The constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law must be followed both in law-making and
implementation of law (Constitutional Court rulings of 6 December
2000, 13 December 2004, 16 January 2006, and 13 August 2007). The
compliance of each institute of law with the Constitution must be
evaluated according to how this institute is in compliance with
the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law
(Constitutional Court rulings of 11 May 1999 and 13 December
2004).
5.1. The Constitutional Court has held more than once that
inseparable elements of the principle of a state under the rule
of law are the protection of legitimate expectations, legal
certainty and legal security. The constitutional principles of
protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and legal
security imply the obligation of the state to secure the
certainty and stability of the legal regulation, to protect the
rights of persons, to respect the legitimate interests and
legitimate expectations. These principles inter alia imply that
the state must fulfil all its undertaken obligations to the
person. If the protection of legitimate expectations, legal
certainty and legal security were not secured, the trust of the
person in the state and law would not be guaranteed.
5.2. One of the essential elements of the principle of a
state under the rule of law, which is consolidated in the
Constitution, is legal certainty which implies certain obligatory
requirements to legal regulation: legal regulation must be clear
and harmonious, legal norms must be formulated precisely and may
not contain any ambiguities (Constitutional Court rulings of 30
May 2003, 26 January 2004, 24 December 2008, and 22 June 2009).
5.3. The Constitutional Court has also held that the
constitutional principle of proportionality as one of the
elements of the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law means that the measures provided for in the law must
be in line with the legitimate objectives which are important to
society, that these measures must be necessary in order to reach
these objectives, and that these measures do not have to restrain
the rights and freedoms of a person clearly more than necessary
in order to reach these objectives (Constitutional Court ruling
of 11 December 2009).
5.4. The content of the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law is to be disclosed while taking account of
various provisions of the Constitution, while evaluating all the
values entrenched in, and protected and defended by the
Constitution, and while taking account of the content of various
other constitutional principles, such as justice (comprising
inter alia natural justice), social solidarity (comprised with
responsibility of everyone for his own fate), equality of persons
before the law, court, state institutions and officials, and
other constitutional principles of no less importance
(Constitutional Court ruling of 13 December 2004).
5.4.1. The constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law is inseparable from the principle of justice, and
vice versa. In its rulings the Constitutional Court has held more
than once that justice is one of the basic objectives of law, as
the means of regulation of social relations. It is one of basic
moral values and one of basic foundations of a state under the
rule of law. It may be implemented by ensuring certain
equilibrium of interests, by escaping fortuity and arbitrariness,
instability of social life and conflict of interests
(Constitutional Court rulings of 22 December 1995, 6 December
2000, 17 March 2003, 17 November 2003, 3 December 2003, and 24
December 2008).
5.4.2. Under the Constitution, the State of Lithuania is
socially oriented, thus, the sate is under constitutional
obligation and it must undertake the burden of fulfilment of
certain commitments. The Constitutional Court has held that the
solidarity principle entrenched in the Constitution implies that
the burden of fulfilment of certain obligations to certain extent
should be distributed also among members of society, however,
such distribution should be constitutionally reasoned, it cannot
be disproportionate, it cannot deny the social orientation of the
sate and the obligations to the state, which arise from the
Constitution (Constitutional Court rulings of 7 June 2007 and 26
September 2007). The constitutional principle of solidarity does
not deny personal responsibility for one's own fate
(Constitutional Court rulings of 12 March 1997, 25 November 2002,
3 December 2003, 5 March 2004, 13 December 2004, 7 June 2007, 26
September 2007, and 2 September 2009).
5.4.3. The Constitutional Court has held that the
constitutional principle of equality of persons must be followed
both in passing of laws and in their application; the
constitutional principle of equality of persons before the law
means an innate human right to be treated equally with the others
(Constitutional Court rulings of 2 April 2001, 23 April 2002, 4
March 2003, 4 July 2003, 3 December 2003, 10 November 2005, 24
December 2008, 3 February 2010, and 22 March 2010) and obliges to
legally assess the homogenous facts in the same manner and
prohibits to arbitrarily assess the facts, which are the same in
essence, in a different manner.
The Constitutional Court has held that the constitutional
principle of equality of rights of persons in itself does not
deny an opportunity to establish diverse, differentiated legal
regulation by means of legislation with respect to certain
persons which belong to different categories, if there exist
differences between these persons of such character, which
objectively justify such differentiated regulation.
Differentiated legal regulation, when it is applied to certain
groups of persons which are distinguished by the same signs, and
in case it strives for positive and socially meaningful goals, or
if the establishment of certain limitations or conditions is
linked with peculiarities of regulated social relations, in
itself is not to be regarded as discrimination (Constitutional
Court rulings of 11 November 1998, 13 May 2005, 31 May 2006, 2
March 2009, and 29 April 2009).
The Constitutional Court has held more than once that the
constitutional principle of equality of all persons before the
law would be violated when a certain group of people to which the
legal norm is ascribed, if compared to other addressees of the
same legal norm, were treated differently, even though there are
not any differences in their character and extent between these
groups that such an uneven treatment would be objectively
justified. While assessing whether an established different legal
regulation is a grounded one, particular legal circumstances must
be taken into account. First of all, the differences of the legal
situation of subjects and objects to which different legal
regulation is applied must be considered (Constitutional Court
rulings of 28 February 1996, 13 November 1997, 4 July 2003, 24
December 2008, 2 March 2009, and 8 June 2009). The compliance of
a concrete legal norm with Article 29 of the Constitution may be
assessed only by taking into account all significant
circumstances (Constitutional Court rulings of 4 July 2003, 24
December 2008, 2 March 2009, and 8 June 2009).
6. In the context of this decision, it needs to be noted
that the aforesaid requirements which stem from the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law,
equality of rights, justice, proportionality, protection of
legitimate expectations, legal certainty, legal security and
social solidarity, as well as other constitutional imperatives,
must be heeded also when there is an extreme situation in the
state (economic crisis etc.) due to which the economic and
financial situation in the state, despite of various other
measures which are applied for overcoming the economic crisis,
has changed to the extent that inter alia the accumulation of the
funds necessary for the payment of remuneration for work of
officials and state servants of the institutions that are funded
from state and municipal budgets (other employees who are
remunerated for work from funds of state and municipal budgets)
or of the funds necessary for the payment of pensions is not
secured and due to this the legal regulation is corrected by
reducing the remunerations and pensions of the said persons.
7. The right to receive fair pay for work is a
constitutional human right (Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the
Constitution). This constitutional right is a precondition for
implementation of many other constitutional rights, inter alia it
is one of the most important preconditions for implementation of
the right of ownership entrenched in Article 23 Constitution
(Constitutional Court rulings of 13 December 2004, 20 March 2007,
and 11 December 2009).
7.1. It needs to be noted that the right to receive fair pay
for work, which is inter alia entrenched in Paragraph 1 of
Article 48 of the Constitution, is inseparable from the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law which
also includes the principle of protection of legitimate
expectations. The constitutional principle of protection of
legitimate expectations means that in cases when a certain
remuneration for work has been established for a person by legal
acts, then this remuneration must be paid throughout the duration
of the established time. In the context of this decision it also
needs to be emphasised that the constitutional principle of
protection of legitimate expectations does not mean that the
remuneration for work paid to the state servants from the funds
of the State Budget or municipal budget may not be reduced at
all; such reduction of remunerations of state servants is
possible only in exceptional cases and only if it necessary in
order to protect other values consolidated in the Constitution;
however, even in such exceptional cases the remuneration for work
may not be reduced in violation of the balance entrenched in the
Constitution between the interests of a person and those of the
society; remuneration for work may not be reduced only to
separate categories of employees who are remunerated for their
work from the funds of the state budget or municipal budget; the
reduction of the remuneration for work must be in conformity with
the constitutional principle of proportionality (Constitutional
Court rulings of 18 December 2001, 13 December 2004, 20 March
2007, and 11 December 2009).
7.2. One of exceptional cases when the remuneration for work
of officials of institutions which are financed from the funds of
state and municipal budgets (and of other employees who are paid
for their work from the funds of state and municipal budgets) as
well as that of state servants may be reduced is an especially
grave economic and financial situation in the state.
The Constitutional Court has noted more than once that, when
due to an extremely difficult economic and financial situation in
the state the legislator adopts a decision to reduce the
remuneration for work of officials and other state servants
(employees) of the institutions that are funded from state and
municipal budgets, the legislator must ascertain that the
economic and financial situation of the state is so difficult
that it calls for a necessity to reduce the remuneration for work
of the said officials and state servants (employees)
(Constitutional Court decision of 15 January 2009, the ruling of
11 December 2009); such reduction of the remuneration for work
must be temporary and grounded upon the circumstances of the
extremely difficult economic and financial situation in the
state, as, for instance, the collection of the state budget
revenue is disordered to the extent that due to this the state is
unable to perform the obligations undertaken by it, and such
situation in the state is not short-termed (Constitutional Court
decision of 15 January 2009, the ruling of 11 December 2009).
Under such circumstances, the legislator may change the legal
regulation which establishes the remunerations to various
persons, and consolidate the legal regulation on the
remunerations which would be less favourable to these persons, if
it is necessary in order to ensure the vital interests of society
and the state and to protect other constitutional values
(Constitutional Court rulings of 28 March 2006, 22 October 2007
and 11 December 2009, the decision of 15 January 2009); however,
also in such cases the legislator must keep the balance between
the rights and legitimate interests of the persons, to whom the
less favourable legal regulation is established and the interests
of society and the state, i.e. the legislator must pay heed to
the requirements of the principle of proportionality
(Constitutional Court rulings of 28 March 2006, 22 October 2007
and 11 December 2009, the decision of 15 January 2009).
The aforesaid provision of the official constitutional
doctrinethe reduction of the remuneration for work must be
temporaryimplies that in cases when the economic and financial
situation of the state deteriorates considerably and the
legislator decides to amend the legal regulation whereby
remunerations are established to various persons and to entrench
a less favourable legal regulation with respect to these persons,
i.e. adopts a decision to reduce the remuneration for work of
officials of institutions which are financed from the funds of
state and municipal budgets (and of other employees who are paid
for their work from the funds of state and municipal budgets) as
well as that of state servants, the reduced remunerations may be
paid only temporarily, i.e. until there is a certain extreme
situation in the state. When the especially grave economic and
financial situation is over, the amounts of the remunerations for
work of officials of institutions which are financed from the
funds of state and municipal budgets (and of other employees who
are paid for their work from the funds of state and municipal
budgets) as well as those of state servants, which were
established in the state prior to occurrence of the said
situation, must be applied as before.
The provision that the reduction of remuneration for work
must be temporary may not be interpreted as meaning that the
state, after the legislator has reduced the remunerations for
work of officials of institutions which are financed from the
funds of state and municipal budgets (and of other employees who
are paid for their work from the funds of state and municipal
budgets) as well as those of state servants, is released from the
duty to look for ways of securing the accumulation of the funds
necessary to pay the remunerations in the amounts that were prior
to their reduction. Quite to the contrary, if, before the end of
the economic crisis, there arises an opportunity to accumulate
(receive) the funds necessary to pay the remunerations in the
amounts that were before the reduction of the remunerations, the
legal regulation under which the remunerations for work of
officials of institutions which are financed from the funds of
state and municipal budgets (and of other employees who are paid
for their work from the funds of state and municipal budgets) as
well as those of state servants were reduced must be abolished.
7.3. The Constitutional Court has held that, under the
Constitution, it is permitted to limit the constitutional human
rights and freedoms, inter alia the human right to receive fair
pay for work, in case the following conditions are observed: this
is done by law; the limitations are necessary in a democratic
society in order to protect the rights and freedoms of other
persons and the values entrenched in the Constitution as well as
the constitutionally important objectives; the limitations do not
deny the nature and essence of the rights and freedoms; one
follows the constitutional principle of proportionality as one of
the elements of the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law, which also means that the measures provided for in
the law must be in line with the legitimate objectives which are
important to society, and that these measures do not have to
restrain the rights and freedoms of a person clearly more than
necessary in order to reach these objectives (Constitutional
Court ruling of 11 December 2009). It has been mentioned that the
requirements of the principle of proportionality must be followed
also when there is an extreme situation in the state (when there
is an economic crisis etc.) when the accumulation of the funds
necessary to pay the remunerations for work of officials of
institutions which are financed from the funds of state and
municipal budgets (and of other employees who are paid for their
work from the funds of state and municipal budgets) as well as
those of state servants, or of the funds necessary to pay
pensions is not secured and due to this the legal regulation is
corrected by reducing the remunerations and pensions of the said
persons.
In its ruling of 11 December 2009, while construing the
content of the principle of proportionality, the Constitutional
Court held:
"<
> wages of state servants may be temporarily reduced when
a particularly difficult economic and financial situation occurs
in the state, however, in such a case one must heed the
requirements of the principle of proportionality. It needs to be
emphasised that the constitutional principle of proportionality
is inseparable from other norms and principles of the
Constitution, inter alia the constitutional principles of equal
rights and justice.
<
> the constitutional principle of proportionality inter
alia means that when there is a particularly difficult economic
and financial situation in the state and when due to this there
is a necessity to temporarily reduce the wages of state servants
in order to secure vitally important interests of society and the
state and to protect other constitutional values, the legislator
is under obligation to establish a uniform and non-discriminatory
scale of reduction of wages of state servants whereby with
respect to all categories of state servants (and other employees
financed from the funds of the state and municipal budgets) the
wages would be reduced in a manner not violating the proportions
of the amounts of the wages established with regard to different
categories of state servants prior to the occurrence of the
particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the
state.
While taking account of this, it needs to be noted that the
constitutional institute of the state service implies a certain
hierarchical system of state servants and differentiated amounts
of wages paid to the servants. The proportions of the differences
in the amounts of wages of state servants depend on a number of
objective peculiarities of the state service, as, for instance,
the character of the corresponding functions ascribed to a state
institution, the complexity and extent of the functions
attributed to the state servant, the responsibility for execution
of these functions, peculiarities of the taken posts, a state
servant's professional level, qualification etc. Thus, the
Constitution does not tolerate any such situations where the
wages of state servants, when there is a difficult economic and
financial situation in the state, are reduced disproportionately,
inter alia in a manner, where the amount of the wage of a state
servant of high qualification, who performs a complex job, is
made more similar to the wage of a state servant of lower
qualification, who performs a less complex job, or where the
former wage is equalised with the latter, or where wages of state
servants of certain groups are reduced by taking account of not
the entire remuneration for work received, but only of individual
constituent parts of the remuneration for work of state servants,
etc. In such situations not only the constitutional principles of
proportionality, equal rights and justice would be denied, but
also one would deviate from the constitutional concept of the
state service as well as the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article
48 of the Constitution consolidating the human right to receive
fair pay for work.
Alongside, it needs to be noted that the constitutional
principles of a state under the rule of law, justice and
proportionality do not mean that it is not allowed to establish
the limit upon the amount of the wage of a state servant below
which it would not be permitted to reduce the wage established
for state servants (and other employees whose work is remunerated
from the funds of the state and municipal budgets) even when
there is a particularly difficult economic and financial
situation in the state. It needs to be noted that while
establishing this limit one has to take account of the
circumstance that, under the Constitution, it is not allowed to
establish any such legal regulation whereby the wage of a state
servant becomes reduced to an amount, where the minimal socially
acceptable needs and the living conditions compatible with human
dignity would not be secured."
8. Article 52 of the Constitution prescribes: "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."
8.1. The Constitutional Court has held more than once that
Article 52 of the Constitution sets the bases of pensionary
maintenance and social support. According to this article of the
Constitution, while implementing the constitutional principle of
public solidarity and by helping a person to protect himself from
the possible social risks and at the same time creating
preconditions for every member of the society to take care of his
own welfare (and not only to trust in the state social security),
the legislator must establish the old age and disability pensions
as well as social assistance in the event of unemployment,
sickness, widowhood, loss of the breadwinner by the law. The
Constitutional Court has also held that also other pensions or
social assistance than those specified in Article 52 of the
Constitution may be established by the law (Constitutional Court
rulings of 23 April 2002, 25 November 2002, 4 July 2003, 30
January 2004, 13 December 2004, 22 October 2007, 24 December
2008, and 2 September 2009). Under the Constitution, the grounds
for pensionary maintenance, the persons who are granted and paid
pensions, the conditions for granting and payment of pensions, as
well as the sizes of the pensions are established by law only
(Constitutional Court rulings of 4 July 2003, 3 December 2003, 13
December 2004, 22 October 2007, 24 December 2008, and 2 September
2009). The legislator, while adopting laws concerning pensionary
maintenance, is bound by the norms and principles of the
Constitution (Constitutional Court rulings of 4 July 2003, 3
December 2003, 22 October 2007, 24 December 2008, and 2 September
2009).
8.2. In its ruling of 26 September 2007, the Constitutional
Court noted that in laws and other legal acts of the Republic of
Lithuania such model of financing of state social insurance by
running income (so-called "pay as you go" model) is consolidated
under which state social insurance is based on compulsory
contributions and is guaranteed by the funds collected during the
current period from employed persons, who give part of the income
that they earned to the persons of society, who must be paid the
payouts provided for in the law due to the fact that they have
reached the pensionable age for old age pension, or disability in
their regard has been recognised, or there are other reasons
provided for in the law; such model of state social insurance is
based on the principles of universality and solidarity; the
principle of universality means that all working persons (with
some exceptions) who receive insured income from their activity,
must pay state social insurance contributions, while the
principle of solidarity means that the working (pursuing active
economic activities) persons who receive insured income
contribute to accumulation of social insurance funds, thus
creating preconditions to pay payments to those persons, who must
be paid the payments provided for in the law due to the fact that
they have reached the pensionable age for old age pension,
disability in their regard has been recognised or there are other
reasons provided for in the law.
The content of the legal regulation of the relations of
social security, social maintenance, and social assistance is
determined by various factors, inter alia by resources of the
state and society and by material and financial possibilities.
The legislator, while paying heed to the Constitution, enjoys
broad discretion in this area, inter alia to choose a system of
pensions. The fact that in Lithuania one chose such a system of
pensions in which the funds collected from the compulsory state
social insurance contributions is the main source of financing
the system of pensions cannot be questioned with regard to its
compliance with the Constitution (Constitutional Court rulings of
26 September 2007 and 22 October 2007). In this context it needs
to be noted that the Constitution, inter alia the constitutional
principle of responsible governance, implies the necessity to use
the social insurance funds responsibly and rationally, i.e. only
according to their targeted purpose.
The Constitutional Court, while forming the official
constitutional doctrine of a socially oriented state, has
disclosed the constitutional imperatives which must be heeded
when the relations of state social insurance, pensionary
maintenance and social assistance are regulated by legal acts
(inter alia Constitutional Court rulings of 10 July 1996, 12
March 1997, 23 April 2002, 25 November 2002, 4 July 2003, 3
December 2003, 30 January 2004, 5 March 2004, 13 December 2004, 7
February 2005, 26 September 2007, 22 October 2007, 24 December
2008, and 2 September 2009):
- the provisions of Article 52 of the Constitution express
the social orientation (social character) of the state, while 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 due to important reasons provided by law, is recognised
as having the status of a constitutional value; the measures of
social security express the idea of social solidarity and help a
person to protect himself from possible social risks; the
provisions of Article 52 of the Constitution guaranteeing
citizens' right to social maintenance, obligate the state to
establish sufficient measures to implement and protect the said
rights;
- the state should create a system of social maintenance
which would help to maintain living conditions corresponding to
personal dignity, and, in case of need, would render a person
necessary social help; the constitutional solidarity principle
implies that the burden of fulfilment of certain obligations to
certain extent should be distributed also among members of
society, however, such distribution should be constitutionally
reasoned, it cannot be disproportionate, it cannot deny the
social orientation of the sate and the obligations to the state,
which arise from the Constitution;
- the principle of solidarity in the civil society does not
deny personal responsibility for one's own fate, therefore, the
legal regulation of the social security should be such as to
create preconditions for each member of the society to take care
for one's own welfare, but not to rely solely on the social
security guaranteed by the state; the social support should not
create preconditions for a person not to strive for a higher
income, not to search for possibilities to ensure to oneself and
one's family by one's own effort the living conditions that are
in line with human dignity, and social support should not become
a privilege; the recognition of mutual responsibility of a person
and the society is important in ensuring social harmony,
guaranteeing freedom of a person and possibility to protect
oneself from difficulties which could not be overcome by one
person alone;
- the right of a person to social assistance and to social
security at large is to be interpreted in accordance with the
imperatives of social harmony and justice which are entrenched in
the Constitution, as well as constitutional principles of equal
rights of persons and proportionality; the legislator, while
establishing which persons are granted and paid the state
pension, the grounds and conditions for granting and payment of
the state pension, as well as the amounts of this pension, is
bound by the constitutional imperative of social harmony, the
principles of justice, reasonableness and proportionality; also,
it is necessary to pay heed to the constitutional principle of
equality of all persons, which prohibits discrimination and
privileges, which obligates to legally assess the same facts
equally and which prohibits virtually the same facts to
arbitrarily assess differently, however, which does not deny the
fact that with regard to certain categories of persons that are
in a different situation differentiated legal regulation may be
established;
- the formula "the state shall guarantee" as employed in
Article 52 of the Constitution means inter alia that pensions and
various types of social assistance are guaranteed for the persons
on the bases and by the amounts that are established in laws,
while the persons who meet the conditions provided by the law,
have the right to demand that the state grant and pay this
pension to them; after the types of pensions, the persons
entitled to the pension, the bases of granting and payment of
pensions, their amounts, and the conditions have been established
by laws, a duty arises for the state to follow the constitutional
principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal
certainty in the area of pensionary maintenance relations; even
in exceptional cases (for example, when due to an economic
crisis, natural disaster etc. there is objective lack of funds
which are necessary for the payment of pensions) the reduced (by
paying heed to the constitutional principle of proportionality)
pensions can be paid only on a temporary basis (i.e. only when
there is an extraordinary situation in the sate);
- 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; these provisions imply a duty of the
legislator to establish the legal regulation which would ensure
the accumulation of funds necessary for pensions and social
assistance and the payment of these pensions and rendering of
social assistance; on the other hand, the burden of the
obligations undertaken by the state falls upon entire society,
therefore the said legal regulation should create preconditions
to distribute (of course, by taking account inter alia of the
constitutional principle of solidarity, the constitutional
imperatives of social harmony and justice) the corresponding
burden that has fallen upon the state among members of society,
however, it must be distributed in such a manner that the
fulfilment of the duty to pay state social insurance
contributions would not become an overly heavy burden and the
person, due to the fact that he is fulfilling this duty, would
not become the one who needs social assistance himself; the fact
that the person, when being capable of working and economically
active, contributed to the accumulation of the funds of state
social insurance should be of significance to the size of his own
state social insurance old age pension; a person, who by his
contributions contributed to accumulation of the funds of state
social insurance more than others, should have tangible benefit;
- the amount of an old age pension which is granted and paid
to persons, when the system of old age pensions is based on
social insurance, may not be independent or be insignificantly
dependent on how long and in what amounts contributions used to
be paid creating material preconditions for the payment of these
pensions; the creation of material preconditions of the payment
of old age pensions is determined both by the time period during
which a person pays state social insurance contributions himself
or someone pays contributions for him, and by the total amount of
state social pension insurance contributions paid to the state
social insurance budget; thus, the total contribution of a person
(total amount of the obligatory state social pension insurance
contributions of a person) while creating material preconditions
for the payment of a state social insurance pension, when the
system of old age pensions is based on social insurance, could
also be one of the criteria, which is to be taken account of
while establishing the conditions for the receiving of the state
social insurance pension; the legal regulation whereby the
grounds would be established for the granting of this pension
distorting the meaning of a personal contribution while creating
material preconditions for the payment of this pension or
establishing conditions of the granting and payment of this
pension, denying the participation of a person in the creation of
material preconditions of the payment of this pension, would be
in conflict with the Constitution;
- due to the social orientation of the State of Lithuania
consolidated in the Constitution the state is generally obligated
to respect the imperative of substantiality of guarantees of
social (material) character, thus it is obligated to respectively
revise (increase the sizes) of social (material) guarantees once
established (and applied), if economic, social situation changes
so that those established (and applied) guarantees depreciate
considerably, moreover, if they generally become nominal
(herewith making an exception regarding a proportional and
provisional reduction of benefits, whenever necessary for the
protection of other constitutional values).
8.3. In its acts the Constitutional Court has held more than
once that while regulating the pensionary relations, one must
heed Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, which
provides for the opportunity of a human being to choose a job at
his own discretion (i.e. by his own free decision); the
constitutional freedom of each human being to choose a job and
business implies a duty of the legislator to create legal
preconditions to implement this freedom; under the Constitution,
it is not permitted to establish the legal regulation under which
an opportunity for the person who has been awarded and paid old
age pension, would be restricted, due to this, to freely choose
an occupation and business, although he meets the conditions
provided for by law so that he would have a certain occupation or
conduct certain business; the legal regulation under which the
person cannot freely choose an occupation and business due to the
fact that upon the implementation of this right he would not be
paid the awarded old age pension or part thereof which was paid
until then, also must be considered as a restriction of an
opportunity to freely choose an occupation or business.
In the context of this decision it needs to be noted that
one must heed the requirement, which arises from the
Constitution, not to establish the legal regulation under which
an opportunity for the person who has been awarded and paid a
pension, inter alia an old age pension, would be restricted, due
to this, to freely choose an occupation and business, although he
meets the conditions provided for by law so that he would have a
certain occupation or conduct certain business, also when there
is an extreme situation in the state (economic crisis etc.)
because of which pensions and the remuneration for work of
officials of institutions which are financed from the funds of
state and municipal budgets (and of other employees who are paid
for their work from the funds of state and municipal budgets) as
well as that of state servants may be reduced.
Thus, also when there is an especially grave economic and
financial situation in the state and when, due to this, there is
a necessity temporarily to reduce the awarded and paid pensions
in order to secure vitally important interests of society and the
state and to protect other constitutional values, it is not
permitted to establish any such legal regulation whereby the old
age pension awarded and paid to the persons who have a certain
occupation or conduct certain business would be reduced, due to
this, to a greater extent if compared with the persons who do not
have any occupation and do not conduct any business.
8.4. As mentioned, one of the types of pensions specified
expressis verbis in Article 52 of the Constitution is an old age
pension. Under Article 52 of the Constitution, the age upon
reaching which a person has the right to receive an old age
pension, the grounds for awarding and payment of such a pension,
the conditions and amounts thereof must be established by law.
While establishing this, the legislator must heed the norms and
principles of the Constitution (Constitutional Court rulings of
25 November 2002, 3 December 2003, and 22 October 2007). As it
has been held by the Constitutional Court, the person who meets
the conditions established by law in order to receive the old age
pension, and who has been awarded and paid this pension, has the
right to a monetary payment of a respective amount, i.e. the
right to possession; this right must be protected and safeguarded
also under Article 23 of the Constitution (Constitutional Court
rulings of 25 November 2002, 3 December 2003, and 13 December
2004). The old age pension is linked with possession in the
jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights as well (Cour
eur. D. H., arr?t Wessels-Bergervoet c. Pays-Bas du 4 juin 2002)
(Constitutional Court ruling of 25 November 2002).
One is to pay attention to the fact that the collection of
the funds necessary to pay the old age pension and the award of
these pensions is based upon social insurance. Payment of social
insurance contributions entails the right of the person to
receive an old age person of respective amount and it is not
allowed that this amount does not depend on the amounts of
contributions that have been paid. The amounts of social
insurance contributions are the basis for the differentiation of
the amounts of old age pensions (Constitutional Court ruling of
25 November 2002).
8.5. The other type of pensions specified expressis verbis
in Article 52 of the Constitution is a disability pension. Under
Article 52 of the Constitution, the law must establish what is
regarded as disability, as well as the grounds for awarding and
payment of such a pension, the conditions and amounts thereof
(Constitutional Court rulings of 3 December 2003, 22 October
2007, and 2 September 2009). The state has a constitutional duty
to ensure the creation of such social protection system (inter
alia a system of social support and disability pension) so that a
person who, due to health disorders (caused by illness, accident,
occupational disease, innate health disorders, etc.), permanently
or temporarily did not acquire or lost a possibility to earn the
living from work or business income, or where such possibilities
significantly diminished, in the cases provided by law, would
receive social support and/or disability pension (Constitutional
Court ruling of 2 September 2009).
8.6. As mentioned, old age and disability pensions are the
types of pensions expressis verbis specified in Article 52 of the
Constitution. It has been mentioned that, under the Constitution,
the law may also establish other pensions, not only those which
are expressis verbis specified in Article 52 of the Constitution.
For instance, the peculiarities of the constitutional institute
of the state service determine inter alia the fact that the
legislator enjoys constitutional powers to establish by the law
the pensions and/or types of social assistance granted solely to
the state servants or individual groups of state servants, the
grouping of which is objectively reasonable; the pensions for
serving the State of Lithuania may be established by the law as
well (Constitutional Court rulings of 13 December 2004, 22
October 2007, and 24 December 2008).
The pensions which are not directly named in Article 52 of
the Constitution are at present established inter alia in the Law
on State Pensions. In this context it needs to be noted that
state pensions differ in their nature and character from old age
pensions of the state social insurance, as well as from other
pensions of the state social insurance: they are paid from the
State Budget; they are granted to persons for their service or
merits to the State of Lithuania, as well as the compensation to
victims specified in the law (Constitutional Court rulings of 3
December 2003, 4 July 2003, 22 October 2007, and 24 December
2008); the receipt of these pensions is linked not to the social
insurance contributions of pensions of the established size, but
to the corresponding status of the person (service, merits or
other circumstances upon which granting of the state pension
depends) (Constitutional Court ruling of 24 December 2008); the
peculiarities of state pensions permit the legislator, taking
account of all the significant circumstances and heeding the
norms and principles of the Constitution, to establish the
corresponding conditions for granting of this pension
(Constitutional Court ruling of 24 December 2008); while paying
heed to the Constitution, one may by the law establish the
maximum size of such pensions, as well as consolidate various
ways for the establishment of the maximum size of such pension;
the legislator, taking account of the Constitution, may also
establish certain cases when the state pension is not granted to
the person (under the conditions provided for in the law); one
may, by the law, taking account of the Constitution, establish
also the cases when the granted state pension is no longer paid;
on the other hand, in the case of the state pensions which are
granted for certain service, for merits to the State of Lithuania
or as a compensation to victims, the provision regarding the
obligation undertaken by the state to grant and pay the
corresponding pension to the person who meets the conditions
established by the law and regarding the right of the said person
to require that the state implement such obligation undertaken by
the law, is also effective (Constitutional Court ruling of 22
October 2007).
8.7. The state, while establishing by the law that the
persons who meet the conditions established by the law acquire
the right to a certain pension established in the law, at the
same time undertakes the obligation to grant and pay such
pension, thus, it must guarantee the corresponding pensionary
maintenance for the specified persons on such grounds and of such
sizes which are established in the law, while the persons who
meet the conditions established by the law have the right to
require that the state implement the obligation undertaken by the
law, grant them the corresponding pension and pay the payments of
the established size; the legislator must establish such legal
regulation which would ensure the payment of the corresponding
pension to the persons who meet the conditions established by the
law (Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October 2007). When the
pension established by a law, which is not in conflict with the
Constitution, is granted and paid, this right and legitimate
expectation acquired by the person are also to be linked to the
protection of the rights of ownership of this person
(Constitutional Court rulings of 4 July 2003, 3 December 2003, 13
December 2004, 22 October 2007, and 24 December 2008).
The constitutional protection of the rights of ownership,
which arise from the Constitution and the laws that are not in
conflict with the Constitution, means the protection of the right
to demand the fulfilment of obligation of property nature to a
person. In the latter case the right to demand for the payments
of pensionary maintenance which are established by the
Constitution or laws that are not in conflict with the latter,
arises from Article 52 of the Constitution, while under Article
23 of the Constitution the proprietary aspects of this right are
defended (Constitutional Court rulings of 4 July 2003, 3 December
2003, 22 October 2007, and 24 December 2008).
8.8. The Constitutional Court has also held more than once
that after the types of pensions, the persons entitled to the
pension, the bases of granting and payment of pensions, their
amounts, and the conditions have been established by laws, a duty
arises for the state to follow the constitutional principles of
protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty in the
area of pensionary maintenance relations. The persons who have
been granted and paid a pension established by the Constitution
or the law, under Article 23 of the Constitution have the right
to demand that the payments be paid further to them in the
amounts which were granted and paid previously (Constitutional
Court rulings of 4 July 2003, 3 December 2003, 24 December 2008,
and 2 September 2009).
8.9. The Constitutional Court has noted that the
constitutional protection of acquired rights and legitimate
expectations does not mean that the system of pensionary
maintenance established by law may not be reorganised. While
reorganising this system, the Constitution must be observed in
every case. The system of pensions may be reorganised only by
law, only guaranteeing the old age and disability pensions
provided for by the Constitution, as well as observing undertaken
obligations by the state, which are not in conflict with
Constitution, to pay corresponding payments to persons who meet
the requirements established by the law. If, while reorganising
the pensionary system, the pensions established by the laws which
are not directly specified in Article 52 of the Constitution were
eliminated, or the legal regulation of these pensions were
amended in essence, the legislator would be obligated to
establish a fair mechanism for compensation of the existing
losses to the persons who had been granted and paid such
pensions. The legislator, while reorganising the system of
pensions so that the bases for pensionary maintenance, persons to
whom the pension is granted and paid, the conditions of granting
and payment of pensions, the amounts of pensionary maintenance
are changed, must provide for a sufficient transitional time
period during which the persons who have a corresponding job or
perform corresponding service which entitles them to a respective
pension under the previous regulation, would be able to prepare
for these changes (Constitutional Court rulings of 4 July 2003,
13 December 2004, 22 October 2007, and 24 December 2008).
In the context of this decision it needs to be noted that
even when due to extreme circumstances (economic crisis etc.)
there is an especially grave economic and financial situation in
the state, the legislator, if he decides to reorganise the
pensionary system so that the pensions which are established by
the laws and which are not directly specified in Article 52 of
the Constitution were eliminated, or the legal regulation of
these pensions were amended in essence, must establish a fair
mechanism for compensation of the existing losses to the persons
who had been granted and paid such pensions.
8.10. It has been mentioned that the formula "the State
shall guarantee" employed in Article 52 of the Constitution
presupposes a duty of the legislator to establish the legal
regulation which would ensure the accumulation of the funds
necessary to pay the pensions and the payment of pensions.
However, there might occur such an extreme situation in the state
(economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) when there is objective
lack of funds for the payment of pensions. In such extraordinary
cases the legal regulation of pensionary relations may be
corrected also by reducing pensions to the extent that it is
necessary to ensure vitally important interests of society and
protect other constitutional values. The reduced pensions may
only be paid on a temporary basis, i.e. only when there is an
extraordinary situation in the sate (Constitutional Court rulings
of 23 April 2002, 25 November 2002, 4 July 2003, 3 December 2003,
13 December 2004, and 24 December 2008).
In the context of this decision it needs to be noted that in
itself the occurrence of an especially grave economic and
financial situation (due to an economic crisis) in the state does
not presuppose the right of the legislator to correct the legal
regulation of pensionary relationsto reduce the awarded and paid
pensions; when there is an especially grave economic and
financial situation, the state must take all possible measures in
order to overcome the economic crisis and to secure the
accumulation of the funds necessary for payment of pensions. In
this context in also needs to be noted that the state
institutions forming and pursuing state economic and finance
policies may not first resort to the measures (inter alia reduce
pensions and other social guarantees) for overcoming the economic
and financial crisis in the course of implementation of which the
burden of overcoming of the crisis is put upon persons. The
measures for overcoming the grave economic and financial
situation in the state must be implemented in a complex manner,
they must be co-ordinated, inter alia in a way so that the
balance between the interests of the person and society, which is
entrenched in the Constitution, would not be disturbed. Only in
an exceptional case, when it is impossible to accumulate (one
does not succeed in accumulating) the amount of the funds
necessary to pay the pensions after all internal and external
opportunities have been used, the pensionary legal regulation may
be corrected by reducing the pensions. It needs to be emphasised
that even in such exceptional cases the awarded and paid pensions
may not be reduced in violation of the balance of the interests
of the person and society, which is entrenched in the
Constitution, i.e. the constitutional principle of
proportionality.
8.11. As mentioned, the principle of proportionality means
that the measures provided for in the law must be in line with
the legitimate objectives which are important to society, that
these measures must be necessary to reach the said objectives and
may not restrict the rights and freedoms of a person clearly more
than necessary in order to reach these objectives.
The constitutional principle of proportionality inter alia
also means that when there is a particularly difficult economic
and financial situation in the state and when due to this there
is a necessity to temporarily reduce the awarded and paid
pensions in order to secure vitally important interests of
society and the state and to protect other constitutional values,
the legislator is under obligation to establish a uniform and
non-discriminatory scale of reduction of pensions whereby the
pensions would be reduced in a manner not violating the
proportions of the amounts of the pensions established with
regard to pensioners of the same category prior to the occurrence
of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in
the state.
Alongside, it needs to be noted that the constitutional
principles of a state under the rule of law, justice and
proportionality do not mean that it is not allowed to establish a
limit in the amount of the pensions below which the pensions
would not be reduced even when there is a particularly difficult
economic and financial situation in the state; while establishing
this limit one has to take account of the circumstance that,
under the Constitution, it is not allowed to establish any such
legal regulation whereby the pension becomes reduced to an
amount, where the person receiving the pension would not be
secured the minimal socially acceptable needs and the living
conditions compatible with human dignity; the pension which
secures only minimal socially acceptable needs and the living
conditions compatible with human dignity to the person who
receives the pension, may not be reduced at all.
8.12. The Constitution has entrenched the duty of the state
to secure the protection and defence of human dignity. The
Constitutional Court, while construing Article 21 of the
Constitution, has held: dignity is an integral characteristic of
a human being as the greatest social value; each member of
society enjoys innate dignity (Constitutional Court rulings of 29
December 2004 and 2 September 2009); innate human rights are
innate opportunities of an individual which ensure his human
dignity in the spheres of social life (Constitutional Court
rulings of 9 December 1998, 29 December 2004, 19 August 2006, and
2 September 2009); dignity is characteristic of every human
being, irrespective of how he himself or other persons assess him
(Constitutional Court ruling of 29 December 2004).
Paragraph 3 of Article 21 of the Constitution inter alia
provides that it shall be prohibited to degrade human dignity.
The fact that the legislator, while regulating relations linked
with implementation of human rights and freedoms, must guarantee
their proper protection constitutes one of the conditions of
ensuring human dignity as a constitutional value; state
institutions and officials have a duty to respect human dignity
as a special value; violation of human rights and freedoms can
infringe human dignity as well (Constitutional Court rulings of
29 December 2004 and 2 September 2009).
The state must create such system of social maintenance,
which would assist in maintaining conditions of living in line
with human dignity, and, if necessary, provide a person with the
necessary social security (Constitutional Court ruling of 2
September 2009).
8.13. In the context of this decision it needs to be noted
that the peculiarities of state pensions, which, in their nature
and character are different from old age pensions, as well as
from disability pensions, imply that when there is a particularly
difficult economic and financial situation in the state and due
to this there is a necessity to temporarily reduce the pensions
in order to secure vitally important interests of society and the
state and to protect other constitutional values, the legislator
may correct the legal regulation of such pensions of different
nature by reducing these pensions to greater extent than old age
and disability pensions. However, while doing so, the proportions
of the amounts of state pensions established prior to the
occurrence of the particularly grave economic and financial
situation in the state may not be violated.
8.14. It has been mentioned that the reduced pensions may
only be paid on a temporary basis, i.e. until there is an
extraordinary situation (inter alia an economic crisis) in the
state, however, this doctrinal provision may not be interpreted
as meaning that, purportedly, the state, after the legislator has
reduced the awarded and paid pensions, is exempted from the duty
to look for ways for accumulation of the funds necessary for
payment of the pensions. Quite to the contrary, if, before the
end of the economic crisis, there arises an opportunity to
accumulate (receive) the funds necessary to pay the pensions in
the amounts that were before the reduction of the pensions, the
legal regulation under which the pensions were reduced must be
abolished.
Under the Constitution, inter alia under the constitutional
principles of a state under the rule of law and responsible
governance, the state institutions forming and pursuing state
economic and financial policies must also assess the fact that
due to special circumstances (economic crisis etc.) there might
occur a particularly grave economic and financial situation in
the state. Therefore, the state institutions must resort to all
possible measures in order to predict the tendencies in the
economic development of the state and to prepare for possible
occurrence of such particularly grave economic and financial
situations.
8.15. The Constitutional Court has held that any correction
of the social policy, the reorganisation of the system of social
guarantees or of individual social guarantees should be
constitutionally grounded; if in the course of reorganisation of
the system of social guarantees or the structure of individual
social guarantees the extent of social guarantees is reduced, let
alone certain social guarantees disappear, a mechanism of just
compensation of incurred losses should be established to the
individuals to whom those social guarantees were reasonably
established (Constitutional Court rulings of 22 November 2007 and
2 September 2009).
Thus, in the context of this decision it needs to be held
that the correction of the legal regulation by reducing old age
pensions even due to the fact that there is an extreme situation
in the state (economic crisis etc.) means restriction of a
constitutional social guarantee of a personthe old age pension.
It has also been mentioned that the person who meets the
conditions established by law in order to receive the old age
pension, and who has been awarded and paid this pension, has the
right to a monetary payment of a respective amount, i.e. the
right to possession; this right must be protected and defended
under Article 23 of the Constitution as well; in the area of the
relations of pensionary maintenance a duty arises to the state to
follow the constitutional principles of protection of legitimate
expectations and legal certainty: the persons who have been
granted and paid a pension established by the Constitution or the
law, under Article 23 of the Constitution have the right to
demand that the payments be paid further to them in the amounts
which were granted and paid previously. In addition, as
mentioned, payment of social insurance contributions entails the
right of the person to receive an old age person of respective
amount and it is not allowed that this amount does not depend on
the amounts of contributions that have been paid. Thus, the
correction of the legal regulation whereby old age pensions are
reduced due to the fact that upon occurrence of an extreme
situation (economic crisis etc.) the economic and financial
situation becomes changed so that the accumulation of the funds
necessary to pay old age pensions is not secured also means that
such legal regulation to a certain extent limits the right of
ownership of the person to whom an old age pension was awarded
and paid.
Thus, the legislator, upon occurrence of an extreme
situation, when inter alia due to an economic crisis it is
impossible to accumulate the amount of the funds necessary to pay
old age pensions must, while reducing old age pensions, provide
for a mechanism of just compensation of incurred losses to the
persons to whom such pensions were awarded and paid, whereby,
after the said extreme situation is over, the state would
undertake an obligation before such persons to compensate them,
in a fair manner and within a reasonable time, the losses
incurred by them due to the reduction of the old age pension.
These provisions are applied mutatis mutandis also with
regard to the compensation for the losses which appear due to the
reduction of a disability pension.
8.16. It has been mentioned that, under the Constitution,
the law may also establish other pensions, not only those which
are expressis verbis specified in Article 52 of the Constitution.
At present, state pensions are among such pensions. It has also
been mentioned that when the pension established by a law, which
is not in conflict with the Constitution, is granted and paid,
this right and legitimate expectation acquired by the person are
also to be linked to the protection of the rights of ownership of
this person; the constitutional protection of the rights of
ownership, which arise from the Constitution and the laws that
are not in conflict with the Constitution, means the protection
of the right to demand the fulfilment of obligation of property
nature to a person; the right to demand that the pensionary
maintenance payments, which are established in the Constitution
and laws which are not in conflict with the Constitution, be paid
stems from Article 52 of the Constitution, whereas under Article
23 of the Constitution the proprietary aspects of this right are
defended. It has also been mentioned that if, while reorganising
the pensionary system, the legal regulation of the pensions
directly specified in Article 52 of the Constitution were amended
in essence, the legislator would be obligated to establish a fair
mechanism for compensation of the incurred losses to the persons
who had been granted and paid such pensions.
In the context of this decision it needs to be noted that
the correction of the legal regulation whereby state pensions are
reduced to a large extent due to the fact that upon occurrence of
an extreme situation (economic crisis etc.) the economic and
financial situation becomes changed so that the accumulation of
the funds necessary to pay state pensions is not secured, is an
essential amendment to the legal regulation of these pensions.
Thus, the legislator, upon occurrence of an extreme situation
when inter alia due to an economic crisis it is impossible to
accumulate the amount of the funds necessary to pay state
pensions, must, while reducing state pensions to a large extent,
provide for a mechanism of just compensation of incurred losses
to the persons to whom such pensions were awarded and paid,
whereby, after the said extreme situation is over, the state
would undertake an obligation before such persons to compensate
them, in a fair manner and within a reasonable time, the losses
incurred by them due to the reduction of the state pension.
In the context of this decision it needs to be noted that,
as mentioned, state pensions differ in their nature and character
from old age pensions of the state social insurance, as well as
from other pensions of the state social insurance; these
peculiarities imply that when there is a particularly difficult
economic and financial situation in the state and when due to
this there is a necessity to temporarily reduce the pensions in
order to secure vitally important interests of society and the
state and to protect other constitutional values, the legislator
may reduce these pensions to a greater extent than old age or
disability pensions. In the context of this decision it needs to
be held that these peculiarities also imply that the losses
incurred due to the reduction of state pensions may be
compensated to a smaller extent than the losses incurred due to
the reduction of old age or disability pensions.
9. The Constitutional Court has noted in its acts more than
once: both the Government which has the powers, under the
Constitution, to execute the State Budget, and the Seimas which,
under the Constitution, approves the State Budget by a law, may
not decide not to react to such essential change of economic and
financial condition of the state, when due to special
circumstances (economic crisis, natural calamity, etc.) a
particularly difficult economic and financial situation occurs in
the state; in such cases, due to objective reasons there may be
lack of funds for the execution of state functions and for the
satisfaction of public interests; under such circumstances
respective legal regulation may be subject to change; it goes
without saying, upon emerging of a particularly difficult
economic and financial situation in the state there may be
difficulties in collecting the revenue provided for in the law on
the State Budget (and in municipal budgets), thus, the required
funds are not obtained for financing respective needs provided
for in the law on the State Budget (and municipal budgets); in
such cases (but, certainly, not exclusively such cases) the State
Budget may be amended before the end of the budget year; such an
option is expressis verbis provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article
132 of the Constitution; upon amending the State Budget (and
municipal budgets), the expenses (appropriations) may be reduced
(rulings of 28 March 2006, 22 October 2007, and 11 December 2009,
the decision of 13 November 2007).
10. It has been mentioned that it is allowed to temporarily
reduce the remunerations for work of officials of institutions
which are financed from the funds of state and municipal budgets
(and of other employees who are paid for their work from the
funds of state and municipal budgets) as well as those of state
servants and pensions of persons, only when there is such a
particularly grave economic and financial situation where inter
alia the collection of the State Budget revenue is disordered to
the extent that due to this the state is unable to perform the
obligations undertaken by it. Such reduction of remunerations and
pensions must be grounded upon the circumstances of the extremely
difficult economic and financial situation in the state. Thus,
only when there is an official statement the there is a
particularly grave economic and financial situation in the state,
which is not short-termed, due to which the state is unable to
perform the obligations undertaken by it, the legislator may
temporarily reduce the remunerations and pensions of the
aforesaid persons.
While disclosing the constitutional concept of the State
Budget, the Constitutional Court has held that, under the
Constitution, the budget year coincides with a calendar year; the
Seimas must approve the State Budget for the budget year, and not
for some other period of time; each budget year the Seimas must
form the State Budget for the following budget year taking into
consideration the existing social and economic situation, the
needs and possibilities of the society and the state, the
available or potential financial resources and the liabilities of
the state, as well as a number of other important factors; while
adopting the law on the State Budget, the Seimas must pay
attention to the aim for a just and harmonious society enshrined
in the Constitution (Constitutional Court ruling of 14 January
2002).
In this context it needs to be noted that constitutional
concept of the State Budget, inter alia the constitutional
institute of a budget year, implies that when there is an extreme
situation in the state (economic crisis etc.) due to which the
economic and financial situation in the state has changed to the
extent that inter alia the accumulation of the funds necessary
for the payment of remuneration for work of officials and state
servants of the institutions that are funded from state and
municipal budgets (other employees who are remunerated for work
from funds of state and municipal budgets) or of the funds
necessary for the payment of pensions is not secured and due to
this the legal regulation has to be corrected by reducing the
remunerations and pensions of the said persons, the reduction of
the remunerations and pensions is allowed for no longer than one
budget year. From the constitutional institute of a budget year,
a duty arises to the legislator, in the course of deliberating
and approving the State Budget for the next year, to reassess the
actual economic and financial situation in the state and to
decide whether the said situation is still a particularly grave
one, inter alia whether the collection of the State Budget
revenue is still disordered to the extent that due to this the
state is unable to perform the obligations undertaken by it and,
due to this, whether also for the next budget year one has to
establish the legal regulation whereby the reduced remunerations
and pensions will have to be paid.
III
1. It has been mentioned that the Constitutional Court may
not construe what was not investigated in that constitutional
justice case, subsequent to which the construed ruling was
adopted. It has also been mentioned that the consideration of a
petition requesting to construe a Constitutional Court ruling or
its other final act does not imply a new constitutional justice
case.
1.1. The Seimas, the petitioner, inter alia requests to
construe whether the provision that when there is an extreme
situation in the state (economic crisis, natural disaster etc.)
"the legal regulation of pensionary relations may be corrected
also by reducing pensions to the extent that it is necessary to
ensure vitally important interests of society and protect other
constitutional values" of Item 1.9 of Chapter II of the reasoning
part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December 2003 means
that the reduction of pensions must be co-ordinated in proportion
with other measures (application of tax concessions, preservation
of the existing jobs and creation of new ones, attraction of
investments to jobs, non-reduction of the fund of remuneration
for work etc.) so that it would not violate vitally important
interests of society and would protect other constitutional
values.
Thus, the Seimas, the petitioner, requests to construe
whether the said provision of Item 1.9 of Chapter II of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December
2003 also means whether, when there is an extreme situation in
the state (economic crisis, natural disaster etc.), the reduction
of pensions must be co-ordinated in proportion with other
measures (application of tax concessions, preservation of the
existing jobs and creation of new ones, attraction of investments
to jobs, non-reduction of the fund of remuneration for work
etc.).
In this context it needs to be noted that, in its ruling of
3 December 2003, the Constitutional Court did not investigate the
issues related to co-ordination of reduction of pensions in
proportion with application of tax concessions, preservation of
the existing jobs and creation of new ones, attraction of
investments to jobs, non-reduction of the fund of remuneration
for work or other measures. It needs to be emphasised that in the
said ruling the issue of co-ordination of reduction of pensions
with any other measures is not discussed at all.
Taking account of the arguments set forth, the
Constitutional Court will not submit construction regarding this
part of the petition of the Seimas, the petitioner.
1.2. The Seimas, the petitioner, inter alia requests to
construe whether the provision "even in such extraordinary cases
it is not permitted that pensions be reduced in violation of the
balance between the interests of the person and society; such
reduction of pensions must be in line with the constitutional
principle of proportionality" of Item 1.9 of Chapter II of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December
2003 means that the reduction of pensions may not be different to
separate groups of persons, the reduction of pensions must be
proportionate to the amounts of taxes and reduction of
remuneration for work and that no measures discriminating one or
another group of society may be applied.
Thus, the Seimas, the petitioner, requests to construe
whether the said provision of Item 1.9 of Chapter II of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December
2003 also means whether:
- the reduction of pensions may not be different to separate
groups of persons;
- the reduction of pensions must be proportionate to the
amounts of taxes and reduction of remuneration for work;
- no measures discriminating one or another group of society
may be applied.
In this context it needs to be noted that, in its ruling of
3 December 2003, the Constitutional Court did not investigate the
issues related to the proportion of reduction of pensions with
amounts of taxes or reduction of remuneration for work.
Thus, the provision "even in such extraordinary cases it is
not permitted that pensions be reduced in violation of the
balance between the interests of the person and society; such
reduction of pensions must be in line with the constitutional
principle of proportionality" Item 1.9 of Chapter II of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December
2003 may be construed only in the aspect whether it means that
the reduction of pensions may not be different to separate groups
of persons and that no measures discriminating one or another
group of society may be applied.
1.3. The Seimas, the petitioner, inter alia requests to
construe whether the provision "principle of equality of persons
before the law would be violated if a certain group of persons,
which a legal norm is addressed to, would be treated in a
different manner comparing to other addressees of the same norm,
though there exist no differences of such nature and scope
between those two groups, which would objectively justify this
different treatment" of Item 5.2 of Chapter II of the reasoning
part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December 2003 means
that when there is an extreme situation in the state (economic
crisis, natural disaster, etc.) it is not allowed in the course
of reduction of remunerations or pensions to apply coefficients
of different amounts with regard to the same social groups (e.g.,
with regard to working and non-working pensioners).
The Seimas, the petitioner, inter alia also requests to
construe whether the provision "the constitutional principle of
equality of all persons before the law would be violated when a
certain group of people to which the legal norm is ascribed, if
compared to other addressees of the same legal norm, were treated
differently, even though there are not any differences in their
character and extent between these groups that such an uneven
treatment would be objectively justified (Constitutional Court
rulings of 20 November 1996, 30 December 2003, 13 December 2004
and 26 September 2007)" of Item 10 of Chapter II of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 24 December 2008 means that it is
not allowed either under normal, or under essentially
deteriorated economic and financial conditions of the state to
apply coefficients of different sizes with regard to persons of
the same social group in the course of reduction of remunerations
and pensions.
In this context it needs to be noted that in its rulings of
3 December 2003 and 24 December 2008 the Constitutional Court did
not investigate the issues related with reduction of
remunerations.
Thus, the provision "principle of equality of persons before
the law would be violated if a certain group of persons, which a
legal norm is addressed to, would be treated in a different
manner comparing to other addressees of the same norm, though
there exist no differences of such nature and scope between those
two groups, which would objectively justify this different
treatment" of Item 5.2 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December 2003 may only be
construed in the aspect whether it means that, when there is an
extreme economic situation in the state (economic crisis, natural
disaster, etc.) it is not allowed in the course of reduction of
pensions to apply coefficients of different amounts with regard
to the same social groups (e.g., with regard to working and non-
working pensioners), whereas the provision "the constitutional
principle of equality of all persons before the law would be
violated when a certain group of people to which the legal norm
is ascribed, if compared to other addressees of the same legal
norm, were treated differently, even though there are not any
differences in their character and extent between these groups
that such an uneven treatment would be objectively justified
(Constitutional Court rulings of 20 November 1996, 30 December
2003, 13 December 2004 and 26 September 2007)" of Item 10 of
Chapter II of the Constitutional Court ruling of 24 December 2008
may only be construed in the aspect whether it means that it is
not allowed either under normal, or under essentially
deteriorated economic and financial conditions of the state to
apply coefficients of different sizes with regard to persons of
the same social group in the course of reduction of pensions.
1.4. The Seimas, the petitioner, inter alia requests to
construe whether the following provisions of Item 4 of Chapter I
of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 16
January 2006, which are: "The constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law implies various requirements for the
legislator and other law-making entities: law-making entities are
empowered to pass legal acts only without exceeding their powers;
the requirements established in legal acts must be based on the
provisions of general type (legal norms and principles) which can
be applied in regard to all the specified subjects of respective
legal relations; the differentiated legal regulation must be
based only on objective differences of the situation of subjects
of public relations regulated by respective legal acts; in order
to ensure that the subjects of legal relations are aware of
requirements put forward to them by law, the legal norms must be
established in advance, the legal acts must be published
officially, they must be public and accessible; the legal
regulation established in laws and other legal acts must be
clear, easy to understand, consistent, formulas in the legal acts
must be explicit, consistency and internal harmony of the legal
system must be ensured, the legal acts may not contain any
provisions, which at the same time regulate the same public
relations in a different manner; in order that subjects of legal
relations could orient their behaviour according to the
requirements of law, the legal regulation must be relatively
stable; the legal acts may not require the impossible (lex non
cogit ad impossibilia); the power of the legal acts is
prospective, while retrospective validity of the laws and other
legal acts is not permitted (lex retro non agit) unless the legal
act mitigates the situation of the subject of legal relations and
does not injure other subjects of legal relations by the same
(lex benignior retro agit); violations of law, for which
liability is established in legal acts, must be clearly defined;
when setting legal restrictions and liability for violations of
law, one must pay heed to the requirement of reasonableness and
the principle of proportionality, according to which the
established legal measures are to be necessary in a democratic
society and suitable for achieving legitimate and universally
important objectives (there must be a balance between the
objectives and measures), they may not restrict the rights of the
person more than it is necessary in order to achieve the said
objectives, and if these legal measures are related to the
sanctions for the violation of law, in such case the
aforementioned sanctions must be proportionate to the committed
violation of law; when legally regulating public relations it is
compulsory to pay heed to the requirements of natural justice
comprising inter alia the necessity to ensure the equality of
persons before the law, the court and state institutions and
officials; when issuing legal acts, one must pay heed to
procedural law-making requirements, including those established
by the law-making entity itself; etc." mean that these
requirements must be heeded in all situations, or, quite to the
contrary, whether various requirements may be applied in a varied
manner, i.e. in one manner when there is a normal situation in
the state, and in a different manner when there is essential
deterioration in the economic and financial situation of the
state.
Thus, the Seimas, the petitioner, requests to construe
whether the aforesaid provisions of Item 4 of Chapter I of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 16 January
2006 also mean that the requirements of the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law must be heeded also
when there is essential deterioration in the economic and
financial situation of the state.
In this context it needs to be noted that in the
Constitutional Court ruling of 16 January 2006 the issues related
to a grave economic and financial situation of the state were not
investigated.
Taking account of the arguments set forth, the
Constitutional Court will not submit construction regarding this
part of the petition of the Seimas, the petitioner.
1.5. The Seimas, the petitioner, inter alia requests to
construe whether the provision "when the economic and financial
situation of the country deteriorates considerably, when due to
particular circumstances (economic crisis, natural disasters,
etc.), an extremely difficult economic and financial situation
has occurred in the state" of Item 9.2 of Chapter IV of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October
2007 means that this must be confirmed by a resolution of the
Government on the grounds of state economic and financial
indicators, and whether such economic and financial indicators
must be confirmed annually as long as such a situation continues
to exist.
Thus, the Seimas, the petitioner, requests to construe
whether the said provision of Item 9.2 of Chapter IV of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October
2007 also means whether:
- the occurrence of an especially grave economic and
financial situation in the state must be confirmed by a
resolution of the Government;
- the occurrence of an especially grave economic and
financial situation in the state must be confirmed on the grounds
of the state economic and financial indicators which must be
confirmed annually as long as such a situation continues to
exist.
In this context it needs to be noted that, in its ruling of
22 October 2007, the Constitutional Court did not investigate the
issues related with such empowerments or duties of the
Government.
Thus, the provision "when the economic and financial
situation of the country deteriorates considerably, when due to
particular circumstances (economic crisis, natural disasters,
etc.), an extremely difficult economic and financial situation
has occurred in the state" of Item 9.2 of Chapter IV of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October
2007 may be construed only in the aspect whether it means that
the occurrence of an especially grave economic and financial
situation in the state must be confirmed on the grounds of the
state economic and financial indicators which must be confirmed
annually as long as such a situation continues to exist.
1.6. The Seimas, the petitioner, inter alia requests to
construe whether the provision that in case there is lack of
funds in the state due to special circumstances "<
> the
legislator may change the legal regulation which establishes the
salaries to various persons, and consolidate the legal regulation
on the salaries which would be less favourable to these persons,
if it is necessary in order to ensure the vital interests of
society and the state and to protect other constitutional values"
of Item 9.2 of Chapter IV of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October 2007 must be applied by
heeding the requirements of the principle of proportionality,
while alongside co-ordinating it with proportionate reduction of
pensions and other social allowances, since the amount of
contributions to the State Social Insurance Fund also depends
upon the amount of remuneration for work, or whether it is
possible to disregard such co-ordination.
Thus, the Seimas, the petitioner, requests to construe
whether the said provision of Item 9.2 of Chapter IV of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October
2007 also means whether, in case there is lack of funds in the
state due to special circumstances:
- in the course of reduction of remunerations one has to
follow the requirements of the principle of proportionality;
- the reduction of remunerations must be co-ordinated with
proportionate reduction of pensions and other social allowances,
since the amount of contributions to the State Social Insurance
Fund also depends upon the amount of remuneration for work.
In this context it needs to be noted that, in its ruling of
22 October 2007, the Constitutional Court did not investigate the
issues related with co-ordination of reduction of remunerations
with proportionate reduction of pensions and other social
allowances.
Thus, the provision that in case there is lack of funds in
the state due to special circumstances "<
> the legislator may
change the legal regulation which establishes the salaries to
various persons, and consolidate the legal regulation on the
salaries which would be less favourable to these persons, if it
is necessary in order to ensure the vital interests of society
and the state and to protect other constitutional values" of Item
9.2 of Chapter IV of the reasoning part of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 22 October 2007 may only be construed in the
aspect whether it means that in case there is lack of funds in
the state due to special circumstances, in the course of
reduction of remunerations one has to follow the requirements of
the principle of proportionality.
1.7. The Seimas, the petitioner, inter alia requests
construction as regards the following provisions of Item 8 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 22 November 2007:
1) whether the provision "any correction of the social
policy, the reorganisation of the system of social guarantees or
of individual social guarantees of the state should be
constitutionally grounded; if in the course of reorganisation of
the system of social guarantees or the structure of individual
social guarantees the extent of social guarantees is reduced, let
alone certain social guarantees disappear, a mechanism of just
compensation of incurred losses should be established to the
individuals to whom those social guarantees were reasonably
established" means that such mechanism of compensation for
incurred losses must be established under normal economic
conditions, and providing such correction of the state social
policy, the reorganisation of the system of social guarantees or
of the structure of individual social guarantees is performed
during a crisis, then it is not followed by a certain
compensation applied at that time or later (the compensation
which will be in effect after the crisis); whether this provision
means that the constitutional doctrine how pensions must be
treated when the system of pensions is reorganised when there is
no crisis is not identical to the constitutional doctrine
establishing the behaviour of the legislator and other subjects
of law in reorganising the system of pensions when there is an
essential change in the economic and financial situation of the
state, when due to special circumstances (economic crisis,
natural disaster etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic
and financial situation in the state;
2) whether the provision "if those guarantees have to
compensate the losses, which an individual may incur due to his
own activities (inter alia due to his service to the state), a
period should also be provided so that it would be sufficient to
those individuals (being in respective work and executing
respective service according to the preceding legal regulation
entitling to respective social guarantees) to prepare for
respective changes" means that both under normal circumstances
and when there is an essential change in the economic and
financial situation of the state, when due to special
circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) there
occurs an especially grave economic and financial situation in
the state, the legislator must establish a sufficient time period
so that the persons might be able to prepare for the provided
changes;
3) whether the provision "the social orientation of the
state consolidated in the Constitution generally obligates the
state to respect the imperative of substantiality of guarantees
of social (material) character, thus obligates to respectively
revise (increase the sizes) of social (material) guarantees once
established (and applied), if economic, social situation changes
so that those established (and applied) guarantees depreciate
considerably, moreover, if they generally become nominal
(herewith making an exception regarding a proportional and
provisional reduction of benefits, whenever necessary for the
protection of other constitutional values)" means that even when
there is an extreme situation in the state (economic crisis,
natural disaster etc.) and due to this proportionately and
temporarily payments are reduced, one must pay attention to the
fact that such payments would not become only nominal.
In this context it needs to be noted that the Constitutional
Court ruling of 22 November 2007 does not discuss a grave
economic and financial situation in the state.
Taking account of the arguments set forth, the
Constitutional Court will not submit construction regarding this
part of the petition of the Seimas, the petitioner.
1.8. The Seimas, the petitioner, inter alia requests to
construe whether the provision of Item 8.6 of Chapter II of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 24 December
2008 that justice "may be implemented by ensuring certain
equilibrium of interests, by escaping fortuity and arbitrariness,
instability of social life and conflict of interests
(Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December 2003)" means that when
there is an essential change in the economic and financial
situation of the state, when due to special circumstances
(economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) there occurs an
especially grave economic and financial situation in the state,
in the course of adoption of decisions to reduce remunerations
and pensions one must avoid fortuity and arbitrariness,
instability of social life and conflict of interests and whether
the issues of increase or reduction of burden of direct and
indirect taxes for this purpose, those of fairer distribution of
the burden of taxes which falls upon labour and capital, those of
increase and reduction of remunerations and pensions and other
social allowances must be solved in a complex manner, by taking
account of the constitutional requirements of justice, solidarity
and proportionality.
Thus, the Seimas, the petitioner, requests to construe
whether the said provision of Item 8.6 of Chapter II of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 24 December
2008 also means whether in case there occurs an especially grave
economic and financial situation in the state due to special
circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster etc.):
- in the course of adoption of decisions to reduce
remunerations and pensions one must avoid fortuity and
arbitrariness, instability of social life and conflict of
interests;
- the issues of increase or reduction of burden of direct
and indirect taxes for this purpose, those of fairer distribution
of the burden of taxes which falls upon labour and capital, those
of increase and reduction of remunerations and pensions and other
social allowances must be solved in a complex manner, by taking
account of the constitutional requirements of justice, solidarity
and proportionality.
In this context it needs to be noted that in its ruling of
24 December 2008 the Constitutional Court did not investigate the
issues related to reduction of remunerations and other social
allowances, save pensions. Nor did the Constitutional Court
investigate, in the same ruling, the issues related to increase
or reduction of burden of direct and indirect taxes, or fairer
distribution of the burden of taxes which falls upon labour and
capital, or the complexity of increase and reduction of
remunerations and pensions and other social allowances.
Thus, the provision of Item 8.6 of Chapter II of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 24 December 2008 that justice "may
be implemented by ensuring certain equilibrium of interests, by
escaping fortuity and arbitrariness, instability of social life
and conflict of interests (Constitutional Court ruling of 3
December 2003)" may only be construed in the aspect whether it
means that whether in case there occurs an especially grave
economic and financial situation in the state due to special
circumstances (economic crisis, natural calamity etc.), in the
course of adoption of decisions to reduce pensions one must avoid
fortuity and arbitrariness, instability of social life and
conflict of interests.
2. It needs to be noted that some provisions of the
Constitutional Court rulings, whose construction is requested by
the Seimas, the petitioner, or the questions raised by the
petitioner, are interrelated and are to be construed in
connection with one another.
2.1. The Seimas inter alia requests construction whether the
provision "The legal regulation under which the person cannot
freely choose an occupation and business due to the fact that
upon the implementation of this right he would not be paid the
awarded old age pension or part thereof which was paid until
then, also must be considered as a restriction of an opportunity
to freely choose an occupation or business" of Item 2.2 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 25 November 2002 is applied to working pensioners only
under normal economic conditions, and whether one must heed this
provision also when there is an extreme situation in the state
(economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) and whether the
provision "under the Constitution, it is not permitted to
establish any such legal regulation under which an opportunity
for the person, who has been granted and paid the old age
pension, would be restricted, due to this, to freely choose an
occupation and business, although he meets the conditions
provided for by law so that he would have a certain occupation or
conduct certain business; the legal regulation under which the
person cannot freely choose an occupation and business due to the
fact that upon the implementation of this right he would not be
paid the granted old age pension or part thereof which was paid
until then, also must be considered as a restriction of an
opportunity to freely choose an occupation or business" of Item 5
of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 22 October 2007 is applied only when there is a normal
economic situation in the state, or whether one must apply it
also in cases when there is an essential change in the economic
and financial situation of the state, when due to special
circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) there
occurs an especially grave economic and financial situation in
the state.
Thus, the Seimas, the petitioner, requests that the quoted
provisions of the Constitutional Court rulings of 25 November
2002 and 22 October 2007 be construed in virtually the same
aspectwhether these provisions mean that, under the
Constitution, the legal regulation where the person is not
allowed to freely choose a job or business due to the fact that
upon implementation of this right he would not be paid the old
age pension (or part thereof) which was awarded and paid until
then, cannot be established also when due to special
circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) there
occurs an especially grave economic and financial situation in
the state. Therefore, the aforesaid provisions of the
Constitutional Court rulings are to be construed in connection
with one another.
2.2. The Seimas inter alia requests construction whether the
provision "While establishing the amounts of old age pensions by
law, one is to take into consideration the fact as to the amount
of contributions that had been paid when the material
preconditions for the payment of these pensions are created" of
Item 2.3 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 25 November 2002 is always
applied, or whether it is possible to disregard this provision
when there is an extreme situation in the state (economic crisis,
natural disaster etc.) and whether the provision "the fact how
the person, while being able to work and economically active,
contributed to the accumulation of the funds of the state social
insurance, has to be significant for the size of his own old age
pension of the state social insurance; a person, who by his
contributions contributed to the accumulation of the funds of the
state social insurance more, must have tangible benefit" of Item
2 of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 22 October 2007 must be applied only when there
is a normal situation in the state, or whether this provision
must be heeded also when due to an essentially deteriorated
economic and financial situation of the state or other special
situation one has to reduce, temporarily and proportionately, the
amount of the state social insurance old age pension.
Thus, the Seimas, the petitioner, requests that the quoted
provisions of the Constitutional Court rulings of 25 November
2002 and 22 October 2007 be construed in virtually the same
aspectwhether these provisions mean that also when one has to
reduce the amounts of state social insurance old age pensions
temporarily and proportionately, in the course of establishing
such amounts one has to take account of the size of the
contribution while creating the material preconditions for
payment of such pensions and how the person, while being able to
work and economically active, contributed to the accumulation of
the funds of the state social insurance. Therefore, the aforesaid
provisions of the Constitutional Court rulings are to be
construed in connection with one another.
2.3. The Seimas inter alia requests construction whether:
- the provisions "The person who meets the conditions
established by law in order to receive the old age pension, and
who has been awarded and paid this pension, has the right to a
monetary payment of a respective amount, i.e. the right to
possession. Under Article 23 of the Constitution, this right must
be protected and safeguarded. It needs to be noted that the old
age pension is linked with possession in the jurisprudence of the
European Court of Human Rights as well (European Court of Human
Rights, Judgment in the case Wessels-Bergervoet v. Netherlands of
4 June 2002)" of Item 2.3 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of
the Constitutional Court ruling of 25 November 2002 are applied
only under normal economic conditions and entrench the mechanism
of protection of the pension as the right of possession, or
whether one must follow such treatment also in cases when there
is an extreme situation in the state (economic crisis, natural
disaster etc.) and it is decided to reduce pensions by not
establishing any mechanisms of compensation for such reduction;
- the provisions that, while reorganising the system of
pensionary maintenance, "<
> the Constitution must be observed in
every case. The system of pensions may be reorganised only by
law, only guaranteeing the old age and disability pensions
provided for by the Constitution, as well as observing undertaken
obligations by the state, which are not in conflict with
Constitution, to pay corresponding payments to persons who meet
the requirements established by the law. If, while reorganising
the pensionary system, the pensions established by the laws which
are not directly specified in Article 52 of the Constitution were
eliminated, or the legal regulation of these pensions were
amended in essence, the legislator would be obligated to
establish a just mechanism for compensation of the existing
losses to the persons who had been granted and paid such
pensions" of Item 3.3 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December 2003 imply a duty for
the legislator to apply the compensation mechanisms after an
extreme situation in the state (economic crisis, natural disaster
etc.) is over, or whether it must also be applied during such a
situation;
- the provisions "the right to demand for the payments of
pensionary maintenance which are established by the Constitution
or laws that are not in conflict with the latter, arises from
Article 52 of the Constitution, while under Article 23 of the
Constitution the proprietary aspects of this right are defended
(Constitutional Court rulings of 4 July 2003, 3 December 2003, 13
December 2004 and 22 October 2007). The said circumstance
determines the specific character of the defence of this acquired
right according to Article 23 of the Constitution. This specific
character inter alia means that in case a question arises as to
the defence of the acquired right under Article 23 of the
Constitution, first of all it should be established whether the
requirement to pay the pension is based on Article 52 of the
Constitution and/or other norms of the Constitution
(Constitutional Court ruling of 4 July 2003)" of Item 4 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 24 December 2008 mean that even when there is an
essential change in the economic and financial situation of the
state, when due to special circumstances (economic crisis,
natural disaster etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic
and financial situation in the state, one must heed the principle
of protection of the acquired right under Article 23 of the
Constitution and seek a compensation mechanism in order to
implement this principle.
Thus, the quoted provisions of the Constitutional Court
rulings of 25 November 2002, 3 December 2003, and 24 December
2008 are interrelated and the Seimas, the petitioner, requests
that they be construed in two aspects, i.e. whether these
provisions:
- mean that even when due to special circumstances (economic
crisis, natural disaster etc.) there occurs an especially grave
economic and financial situation in the state, one must heed the
principle of protection of the acquired right under Article 23 of
the Constitution and apply a certain mechanism for compensation
of the incurred losses;
- imply the duty of the legislator to apply the compensation
mechanisms after the extreme situation (economic crisis, economic
disaster etc.) in the state is over, or also during such
situation as well.
Therefore, the aforesaid provisions of the Constitutional
Court rulings are to be construed in connection with one another.
2.4. The Seimas inter alia requests construction whether the
provision "even in such extraordinary cases it is not permitted
that pensions be reduced in violation of the balance between the
interests of the person and society; such reduction of pensions
must be in line with the constitutional principle of
proportionality" of Item 1.9 of Chapter II of the reasoning part
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December 2003 means that
the reduction of pensions may not be different to separate groups
of persons and that no measures discriminating one or another
group of society may be applied; also whether the provision "It
needs to be noted that even in such extraordinary cases it is not
permitted that pensions be reduced in violation of the balance
between the interests of the person and society; such reduction
of pensions must be in line with the constitutional principle of
proportionality (Constitutional Court rulings of 4 July 2003 and
3 December 2003)" of Item 4 of Chapter II of the reasoning part
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 24 December 2008 means that
when there is an essential change in the economic and financial
situation of the state, when due to special circumstances
(economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) there occurs an
especially grave economic and financial situation in the state,
it is not allowed to reduce pensions without prior complex
assessment of all interests of an individual and society and
without applying the principles of justice, reasonableness,
proportionality and legal certainty.
Thus, the quoted provisions of the Constitutional Court
rulings of 3 December 2003 and 24 December 2008 are virtually
identical and the Seimas, the petitioner, requests that they be
construed in two aspects, i.e. whether these provisions mean that
when due to special circumstances (economic crisis, natural
disaster etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic and
financial situation in the state:
- the reduction of pensions may not be different to separate
groups of persons and no measures discriminating one or another
social group may be applied;
- it is not allowed to reduce pensions without prior complex
assessment of all interests of an individual and society and
without applying the principles of justice, reasonableness,
proportionality and legal certainty.
Therefore, the aforesaid provisions of the Constitutional
Court rulings are to be construed in connection with one another.
2.5. The Seimas inter alia requests to construe whether the
provision "principle of equality of persons before the law would
be violated if a certain group of persons, which a legal norm is
addressed to, would be treated in a different manner comparing to
other addressees of the same norm, though there exist no
differences of such nature and scope between those two groups,
which would objectively justify this different treatment" of Item
5.2 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 3 December 2003 means that when there is an
extreme economic situation in the state (economic crisis, natural
disaster, etc.) it is not allowed in the course of reduction of
pensions to apply different amounts with regard to the same
social groups (e.g., with regard to working and non-working
pensioners), also whether the provision "the constitutional
principle of equality of all persons before the law would be
violated when a certain group of people to which the legal norm
is ascribed, if compared to other addressees of the same legal
norm, were treated differently, even though there are not any
differences in their character and extent between these groups
that such an uneven treatment would be objectively justified
(Constitutional Court rulings of 20 November 1996, 30 December
2003, 13 December 2004 and 26 September 2007)" of Item 10 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 24 December 2008 means that it is not allowed either
under normal, or under essentially deteriorated economic and
financial conditions of the state to apply coefficients of
different sizes with regard to persons of the same social group
in the course of reduction of pensions.
Thus, the Seimas, the petitioner, requests that the quoted
provisions of the Constitutional Court rulings of 3 December 2003
and 24 December 2008 be construed in virtually the same aspect
whether these provisions mean that the principle of equality
before the law would be violated if, upon occurrence of an
especially grave economic and financial situation in the state
due to special circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster
etc.), in the course of reduction of pensions to persons of the
same social group the coefficients of different amounts were
applied. Therefore, the aforesaid provisions of the
Constitutional Court rulings are to be construed in connection
with one another.
2.6. The Seimas inter alia requests to construe whether the
provision "the said legal regulation should create preconditions
to distribute <
> the corresponding burden that has fallen upon
the state among members of society, however, it must be
distributed in such a manner that the fulfilment of the duty to
pay state social insurance contributions would not become an
overly heavy burden and the person, due to the fact that he is
fulfilling this duty, would not become the one who needs social
assistance" of Item 3 of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 26 September 2007 must be applied
only under normal economic conditions, and whether one must heed
these provisions also when one has to reduce the amount of state
social insurance old age pension temporarily and proportionately
due to an essentially deteriorated economic and financial
situation in the state or other extreme situations, also whether
the provision "the said legal regulation should create
preconditions to distribute (of course, by taking account inter
alia of the constitutional principle of solidarity, the
constitutional imperatives of social harmony and justice) the
corresponding burden that has fallen upon the state among members
of society" of the same item means that the constitutional
imperatives of solidarity, social harmony and justice must be
followed by redistributing, among all members of society, the
corresponding burden that falls upon the state not only under
normal conditions, but also when there is an essential change in
the economic and financial situation of the state, when due to
special circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster etc.)
there occurs an especially grave economic and financial situation
in the state.
Thus, the Seimas, the petitioner, requests construction of
the same provision of the Constitutional Court ruling of 26
September 2007, which is "the said legal regulation should create
preconditions to distribute (of course, by taking account inter
alia of the constitutional principle of solidarity, the
constitutional imperatives of social harmony and justice) the
corresponding burden that has fallen upon the state among members
of society, however, it must be distributed in such a manner that
the fulfilment of the duty to pay state social insurance
contributions would not become an overly heavy burden and the
person, due to the fact that he is fulfilling this duty, would
not become the one who needs social assistance himself".
It is requested that this provision be construed in two
aspects, i.e. whether it means that:
- also when due to an essentially deteriorated economic and
financial situation of the state or other extreme situations one
has to reduce, temporarily and proportionately, the amount of the
state social insurance old age pension, the legal regulation
should create preconditions to distribute the corresponding
burden that has fallen upon the state among members of society so
that the fulfilment of the duty to pay state social insurance
contributions would not become an overly heavy burden and the
person, due to the fact that he is fulfilling this duty, would
not become the one who needs social assistance himself;
- also when there is an essential change in the economic and
financial situation of the state and when due to special
circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) there
occurs an especially grave economic and financial situation in
the state, one has to follow the constitutional imperatives of
solidarity, social harmony and justice in the course of
redistributing the corresponding burden that has fallen upon the
state among members of society.
Therefore, the said issues raised by the petitioner are to
be construed in connection with one another.
2.7. The Seimas, the petitioner, inter alia requests to
construe whether the provision that in case there is lack of
funds in the state due to special circumstances "the legislator
may change the legal regulation which establishes the salaries to
various persons, and consolidate the legal regulation on the
salaries which would be less favourable to these persons, if it
is necessary in order to ensure the vital interests of society
and the state and to protect other constitutional values" of Item
9.2 of Chapter IV of the reasoning part of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 22 October 2007 must be applied by heeding the
requirements of the principle of proportionality, also whether
the provision "when the economic and financial situation of the
country deteriorates considerably, when due to particular
circumstances (economic crisis, natural disasters, etc.), an
extremely difficult economic and financial situation has occurred
in the state" of the same item means that, under such particular
circumstances, the reduction of remunerations must be performed
while following the requirement of proportionality, i.e.
remunerations must be reduced to various persons equally in a
proportionate manner, or whether different proportions can be
established for separate groups of persons.
Thus, the Seimas, the petitioner, requests that the quoted
provisions of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October 2007
be construed in virtually the same aspectwhether these
provisions mean that, when upon occurrence of an extremely
difficult economic and financial situation in the state due to
particular circumstances (economic crisis, natural disasters,
etc.), one has to follow the principle of proportionality in the
course of reduction of remunerations to various persons.
Therefore, the aforesaid provisions of the Constitutional Court
ruling are to be construed in connection with one another.
3. In the context of this decision it also needs to be noted
that the petitioner requests to construe the official
constitutional doctrinal provisions related with the
constitutional requirements which must be followed in the course
of reduction of pensions and of the remunerations for work of
officials of institutions which are financed from the funds of
state and municipal budgets (and of other employees who are paid
for their work from the funds of state and municipal budgets) as
well as those of state servants due to the fact that there is an
especially grave economic and financial situation in the state
due to an economic crisis.
4. Thus, the Constitutional Court will present construction
whether:
1) the provision "The legal regulation under which the
person cannot freely choose an occupation and business due to the
fact that upon the implementation of this right he would not be
paid the awarded old age pension or part thereof which was paid
until then, also must be considered as a restriction of an
opportunity to freely choose an occupation or business" of Item
2.2 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 25 November 2002 and the provision "under the
Constitution, it is not permitted to establish any such legal
regulation under which an opportunity for the person, who has
been granted and paid the old age pension, would be restricted,
due to this, to freely choose an occupation and business,
although he meets the conditions provided for by law so that he
would have a certain occupation or conduct certain business; the
legal regulation under which the person cannot freely choose an
occupation and business due to the fact that upon the
implementation of this right he would not be paid the granted old
age pension or part thereof which was paid until then, also must
be considered as a restriction of an opportunity to freely choose
an occupation or business" of Item 5 of Chapter III of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October
2007 mean that, under the Constitution, the legal regulation
where the person is not allowed to freely choose a job or
business due to the fact that upon implementation of this right
he would not be paid the old age pension (or part thereof) which
was awarded and paid until then, cannot be established also when
due to special circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster
etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic and financial
situation in the state;
2) the provision "While establishing the amounts of old age
pensions by law, one is to take into consideration the fact as to
the amount of contributions that had been paid when the material
preconditions for the payment of these pensions are created" of
Item 2.3 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 25 November 2002 and the provision
"the fact how the person, while being able to work and
economically active, contributed to the accumulation of the funds
of the state social insurance, has to be significant for the size
of his own old age pension of the state social insurance; a
person, who by his contributions contributed to the accumulation
of the funds of the state social insurance more, must have
tangible benefit" of Item 2 of Chapter III of the reasoning part
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October 2007 mean that
also when one has to reduce the amounts of state social insurance
old age pensions temporarily and proportionately due to an
essentially deteriorated economic and financial situation in the
state or due to other extreme situations, in the course of
establishing such amounts one has to take account of the size of
the contribution while creating the material preconditions for
payment of such pensions and how the person, while being able to
work and economically active, contributed to the accumulation of
the funds of the state social insurance;
3) the provisions "The person who meets the conditions
established by law in order to receive the old age pension, and
who has been awarded and paid this pension, has the right to a
monetary payment of a respective amount, i.e. the right to
possession. Under Article 23 of the Constitution, this right must
be protected and safeguarded. It needs to be noted that the old
age pension is linked with possession in the jurisprudence of the
European Court of Human Rights as well (European Court of Human
Rights, Judgment in the case Wessels-Bergervoet v. Netherlands of
4 June 2002)" of Item 2.3 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of
the Constitutional Court ruling of 25 November 2002 as well as
the provisions that, while reorganising the system of pensionary
maintenance, "<
> the Constitution must be observed in every
case. The system of pensions may be reorganised only by law, only
guaranteeing the old age and disability pensions provided for by
the Constitution, as well as observing undertaken obligations by
the state, which are not in conflict with Constitution, to pay
corresponding payments to persons who meet the requirements
established by the law. If, while reorganising the pensionary
system, the pensions established by the laws which are not
directly specified in Article 52 of the Constitution were
eliminated, or the legal regulation of these pensions were
amended in essence, the legislator would be obligated to
establish a just mechanism for compensation of the existing
losses to the persons who had been granted and paid such
pensions" of Item 3.3 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December 2003 and the provisions
"the right to demand for the payments of pensionary maintenance
which are established by the Constitution or laws that are not in
conflict with the latter, arises from Article 52 of the
Constitution, while under Article 23 of the Constitution the
proprietary aspects of this right are defended (Constitutional
Court rulings of 4 July 2003, 3 December 2003, 13 December 2004
and 22 October 2007). The said circumstance determines the
specific character of the defence of this acquired right
according to Article 23 of the Constitution. This specific
character inter alia means that in case a question arises as to
the defence of the acquired right under Article 23 of the
Constitution, first of all it should be established whether the
requirement to pay the pension is based on Article 52 of the
Constitution and/or other norms of the Constitution
(Constitutional Court ruling of 4 July 2003)" of Item 4 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 24 December 2008:
- mean that even when due to special circumstances (economic
crisis etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic and
financial situation in the state, one must heed the principle of
protection of the acquired right under Article 23 of the
Constitution and apply a certain mechanism for compensation of
the incurred losses;
- imply the duty of the legislator to apply the compensation
mechanisms after the extreme situation (economic crisis etc.) in
the state is over, or also during such a situation as well;
4) the provision "even in such extraordinary cases it is not
permitted that pensions be reduced in violation of the balance
between the interests of the person and society; such reduction
of pensions must be in line with the constitutional principle of
proportionality" of Item 1.9 of Chapter II of the reasoning part
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December 2003 and the
provision "It needs to be noted that even in such extraordinary
cases it is not permitted that pensions be reduced in violation
of the balance between the interests of the person and society;
such reduction of pensions must be in line with the
constitutional principle of proportionality (Constitutional Court
rulings of 4 July 2003 and 3 December 2003)" of Item 4 of Chapter
II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 24
December 2008 mean that when due to special circumstances
(economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) there occurs an
especially grave economic and financial situation in the state:
- the reduction of pensions may not be different to separate
groups of persons and no measures discriminating one or another
social group may be applied;
- it is not allowed to reduce pensions without prior complex
assessment of all interests of an individual and society and
without applying the principles of justice, reasonableness,
proportionality and legal certainty;
5) whether the provision "if the protection of legitimate
expectations, legal certainty and legal security of the person
were not ensured, the confidence of the person in the state and
law would not be ensured" of Item 3.2 of Chapter II of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December
2003 is always applied, or whether it is allowed to disregard
this provision when there is a grave economic situation in the
state;
6) the provision "principle of equality of persons before
the law would be violated if a certain group of persons, which a
legal norm is addressed to, would be treated in a different
manner comparing to other addressees of the same norm, though
there exist no differences of such nature and scope between those
two groups, which would objectively justify this different
treatment" of Item 5.2 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December 2003 and the provision
"the constitutional principle of equality of all persons before
the law would be violated when a certain group of people to which
the legal norm is ascribed, if compared to other addressees of
the same legal norm, were treated differently, even though there
are not any differences in their character and extent between
these groups that such an uneven treatment would be objectively
justified (Constitutional Court rulings of 20 November 1996, 30
December 2003, 13 December 2004 and 26 September 2007)" of Item
10 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 24 December 2008 mean that the principle of
equality before the law would be violated if, upon occurrence of
an especially grave economic and financial situation in the state
due to special circumstances (economic crisis etc.), in the
course of reduction of pensions to persons of the same social
group the coefficients of different amounts were applied.
7) the provision "the said legal regulation should create
preconditions to distribute (of course, by taking account inter
alia of the constitutional principle of solidarity, the
constitutional imperatives of social harmony and justice) the
corresponding burden that has fallen upon the state among members
of society, however, it must be distributed in such a manner that
the fulfilment of the duty to pay state social insurance
contributions would not become an overly heavy burden and the
person, due to the fact that he is fulfilling this duty, would
not become the one who needs social assistance himself" of Item 3
of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 26 September 2007 means that:
- also when due to an essentially deteriorated economic and
financial situation of the state or other special situation one
has to reduce, temporarily and proportionately, the amount of the
state social insurance old age pension, the legal regulation
should create preconditions to distribute the corresponding
burden that has fallen upon the state among members of society so
that the fulfilment of the duty to pay state social insurance
contributions would not become an overly heavy burden and the
person, due to the fact that he is fulfilling this duty, would
not become the one who needs social assistance himself;
- also when there is an essential change in the economic and
financial situation of the state and when due to special
circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) there
occurs an especially grave economic and financial situation in
the state, one has to follow the constitutional imperatives of
solidarity, social harmony and justice in the course of
redistributing the corresponding burden that has fallen upon the
state among members of society;
8) the provision "the social orientation of the State of
Lithuania which is consolidated in the Constitution obliges the
state to pay heed to the guarantees of pensions (inter alia state
pensions) and other social (material) guarantees which, by the
way, stem not only from Article 52 of the Constitution, but also
from other provisions of the Constitution, or, for example, from
Paragraph 2 of Article 30, Articles 38, 39, 41, 48, Paragraph 1
of Article 51 and Article 146 thereof, the imperative of reality,
thus, it obliges to revise once established (and applied) social
(material) guarantees, in particular if they are linked with
certain periodic payments (such as pensions), to revise (increase
their sizes) in particular if economic or social situation
undergoes such changes so that the said established (and applied)
guarantees depreciate a lot, moreover, if they become nominal in
general (in this case, one must also have in mind the reservation
regarding the proportionality and temporary reduction of the
payments when it is necessary for the protection of other
constitutional values which is specified in this and other
Constitutional Court rulings)" of Item 6 of Chapter III of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October
2007 means that even when there is an extreme situation in the
state (economic crisis etc.) and due to this proportionately and
temporarily payments are reduced, one must pay attention to the
fact that such payments would not become only nominal;
9) the provision "when the economic and financial situation
of the country deteriorates considerably, when due to particular
circumstances (economic crisis, natural disasters, etc.), an
extremely difficult economic and financial situation has occurred
in the state" of Item 9.2 of Chapter IV of the reasoning part of
the Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October 2007 means that the
occurrence of an especially grave economic and financial
situation in the state must be confirmed on the grounds of the
state economic and financial indicators which must be confirmed
annually as long as such a situation continues to exist;
10) the provision of Item 8.6 of Chapter II of the reasoning
part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 24 December 2008 that
justice "may be implemented by ensuring certain equilibrium of
interests, by escaping fortuity and arbitrariness, instability of
social life and conflict of interests (Constitutional Court
ruling of 3 December 2003)" means that when due to special
circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) upon
occurrence of an especially grave economic and financial
situation in the state, in the course of adoption of decisions to
reduce pensions one must avoid fortuity and arbitrariness,
instability of social life and conflict of interests;
11) the provision "the legislator may change the legal
regulation which establishes the salaries to various persons, and
consolidate the legal regulation on the salaries which would be
less favourable to these persons, if it is necessary in order to
ensure the vital interests of society and the state and to
protect other constitutional values" of Item 9.2 of Chapter IV of
the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22
October 2007 and the provision "when the economic and financial
situation of the country deteriorates considerably, when due to
particular circumstances (economic crisis, natural disasters,
etc.), an extremely difficult economic and financial situation
has occurred in the state" of the same item mean that, when upon
occurrence of an extremely difficult economic and financial
situation in the state due to particular circumstances (economic
crisis etc.), one has to follow the principle of proportionality
in the course of reduction of remunerations to various persons;
12) the provision "<
> when due to an extremely difficult
economic and financial situation in the state the legislator
adopts a decision to reduce the remuneration for work of
officials and other state servants (employees) of the
institutions that are funded from state and municipal budgets, it
must be ascertained that the economic and financial situation of
the state is so difficult that it calls for a necessity to reduce
the remuneration for work of the said officials and state
servants (employees). <
> such reduction of the remuneration for
work must be temporary and grounded upon the circumstances of the
extremely difficult economic and financial situation in the
state" of Item 10 of Chapter IV of the Constitutional Court
decision of 15 January 2009 means that the temporary reduction of
the remuneration for work must be continually corrected during
the budget year by taking account of the collection plan of the
state budget revenues, or whether it must be corrected during a
two- or three-year period, or even during a longer period (until
the short-term crisis in the state is over);
13) the provision "the collection of the state budget
revenue is disordered to the extent that due to this the state is
unable to perform the obligations undertaken by it, and such
situation in the state is not short-termed" of Item 10 of Chapter
IV of the Constitutional Court decision of 15 January 2009
includes the entire budget year, or a longer period.
IV
1. The petitioner inter alia requests construction of
whether the provision "The legal regulation under which the
person cannot freely choose an occupation and business due to the
fact that upon the implementation of this right he would not be
paid the awarded old age pension or part thereof which was paid
until then, also must be considered as a restriction of an
opportunity to freely choose an occupation or business" of Item
2.2 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 25 November 2002 and the provision "under the
Constitution, it is not permitted to establish any such legal
regulation under which an opportunity for the person, who has
been granted and paid the old age pension, would be restricted,
due to this, to freely choose an occupation and business,
although he meets the conditions provided for by law so that he
would have a certain occupation or conduct certain business; the
legal regulation under which the person cannot freely choose an
occupation and business due to the fact that upon the
implementation of this right he would not be paid the granted old
age pension or part thereof which was paid until then, also must
be considered as a restriction of an opportunity to freely choose
an occupation or business" of Item 5 of Chapter III of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October
2007 mean that, under the Constitution, the legal regulation
where the person is not allowed to freely choose a job or
business due to the fact that upon implementation of this right
he would not be paid the old age pension (or part thereof) which
was awarded and paid until then, cannot be established also when
due to special circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster
etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic and financial
situation in the state.
1.1. It has been mentioned that one must heed the
requirement, which arises from the Constitution, not to establish
the legal regulation under which an opportunity for the person
who has been awarded and paid a pension, inter alia an old age
pension, would be restricted, due to this, to freely choose an
occupation and business, although he meets the conditions
provided for by law so that he would have a certain occupation or
conduct certain business, also when there is an extreme situation
in the state (economic crisis etc.) because of which pensions and
the remuneration for work of officials of institutions which are
financed from the funds of state and municipal budgets (and of
other employees who are paid for their work from the funds of
state and municipal budgets) as well as that of state servants
may be reduced.
1.2. It has also been mentioned that even in exceptional
cases pensions may not be reduced by violating the balance, which
is entrenched in the Constitution, between the interests of the
person and society, i.e. by violating the constitutional
principle of proportionality which inter alia implies that when
there is a particularly difficult economic and financial
situation in the state and when due to this there is a necessity
to temporarily reduce the awarded and paid pensions in order to
secure vitally important interests of society and the state and
to protect other constitutional values, the legislator is under
obligation to establish a uniform and non-discriminatory scale of
reduction of pensions whereby the pensions would be reduced in a
manner not violating the proportions of the amounts of the
pensions established with regard to pensioners of the same
category prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult
economic and financial situation in the state.
In this context it needs to be noted that, as mentioned,
when there is an especially grave economic and financial
situation in the state and when, due to this, there is a
necessity temporarily to reduce the awarded and paid pensions in
order to secure vitally important interests of society and the
state and to protect other constitutional values, it is not
permitted to establish any such legal regulation whereby the old
age pension awarded and paid to the persons who have a certain
occupation or conduct certain business would be reduced, due to
this, to a greater extent if compared with the persons who do not
have any occupation and do not conduct any business.
1.3. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision "The legal regulation under
which the person cannot freely choose an occupation and business
due to the fact that upon the implementation of this right he
would not be paid the awarded old age pension or part thereof
which was paid until then, also must be considered as a
restriction of an opportunity to freely choose an occupation or
business" of Item 2.2 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 25 November 2002 and the provision
"under the Constitution, it is not permitted to establish any
such legal regulation under which an opportunity for the person,
who has been granted and paid the old age pension, would be
restricted, due to this, to freely choose an occupation and
business, although he meets the conditions provided for by law so
that he would have a certain occupation or conduct certain
business; the legal regulation under which the person cannot
freely choose an occupation and business due to the fact that
upon the implementation of this right he would not be paid the
granted old age pension or part thereof which was paid until
then, also must be considered as a restriction of an opportunity
to freely choose an occupation or business" of Item 5 of Chapter
III of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of
22 October 2007 inter alia mean that, under the Constitution, the
legal regulation where the person is not allowed to freely choose
a job or business due to the fact that upon implementation of
this right he would not be paid the old age pension (or part
thereof) which was awarded and paid until then, cannot be
established also when due to special circumstances (economic
crisis, natural disaster etc.) there occurs an especially grave
economic and financial situation in the state; it is not
permitted to establish any such legal regulation whereby the old
age pension awarded and paid to the persons who have a certain
occupation or conduct certain business would be reduced, due to
this, to a greater extent if compared with the persons who do not
have any occupation and do not conduct any business.
2. The petitioner inter alia requests construction of
whether the provision "While establishing the amounts of old age
pensions by law, one is to take into consideration the fact as to
the amount of contributions that had been paid when the material
preconditions for the payment of these pensions are created" of
Item 2.3 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 25 November 2002 and the provision
"the fact how the person, while being able to work and
economically active, contributed to the accumulation of the funds
of the state social insurance, has to be significant for the size
of his own old age pension of the state social insurance; a
person, who by his contributions contributed to the accumulation
of the funds of the state social insurance more, must have
tangible benefit" of Item 2 of Chapter III of the reasoning part
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October 2007 mean that
also when one has to reduce the amounts of state social insurance
old age pensions temporarily and proportionately due to an
essentially deteriorated economic and financial situation in the
state or due to other extreme situations, in the course of
establishing such amounts one has to take account of the size of
the contribution while creating the material preconditions for
payment of such pensions and how the person, while being able to
work and economically active, contributed to the accumulation of
the funds of the state social insurance.
2.1. The provision of the Constitutional Court ruling of 25
November 2002, the construction of which is requested by the
petitioner, is part of a bigger text set forth in Item 2.3 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the said ruling. It inter
alia held the following: "In the context of the case at issue it
needs to be noted that in the case that the collection of funds
necessary to pay pensions and the payment of the pensions
themselves are based on social insurance (on social insurance
contributions), the human being, to a certain extent, takes part
in the creation of the material preconditions of payment of these
pensions. While establishing the amounts of old age pensions by
law, one is to take into consideration the fact as to the amount
of contributions that had been paid when the material
preconditions for the payment of these pensions are created."
The provision of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22
October 2007, the construction of which is requested by the
petitioner, is part of a bigger text set forth in Item 2 of
Chapter III of the reasoning part of the said ruling. It inter
alia held the following:
"<...> legal regulation has to create preconditions to
distribute (taking account inter alia of the constitutional
principle of solidarity and the constitutional imperatives of
social harmony and justice) the corresponding burden which falls
on the state among the members of the society. In the aspect of
the compliance with the Constitution, one may not question the
fact that in Lithuania such pensionary system is chosen, in which
the funds collected from the obligatory state social insurance
contributions are the main source of funding the pensionary
system (and the payment of state social insurance contributions
is related to the established minimum size of the insured income
received by the person). On the other hand, the implementation of
the duty to pay the state social insurance contributions should
not become too much of a burden to the person and because of the
fact that he implements this duty, the person should not become
the one who needs social assistance; the fact how the person,
while being able to work and economically active, contributed to
the accumulation of the funds of the state social insurance, has
to be significant for the size of his own old age pension of the
state social insurance; a person, who by his contributions
contributed to the accumulation of the funds of the state social
insurance more, must have tangible benefit."
2.2. It has been mentioned that, while establishing the
amounts of old age pensions by law, one is to take into
consideration the fact as to the amount of contributions that had
been paid when the material preconditions for the payment of
these pensions are created. It needs to be emphasised that the
legal regulation whereby the grounds would be established for the
granting a state social insurance old age pension, where such
grounds deny the significance of the contribution of the person
in the creation of material preconditions for payment of this
pension or where no account is taken of the extent of the
contribution of the person to the creation of such preconditions,
would be in conflict with the Constitution.
2.3. It has been mentioned that there might occur such an
extreme situation (economic crisis etc.) in the state, where it
would be impossible to accumulate the amount of funds necessary
for payment of pensions. In such extraordinary cases the legal
regulation of pensionary relations may be corrected also by
reducing pensions to the extent that it is necessary to ensure
vitally important interests of society and protect other
constitutional values. The reduced pensions may be paid only
temporarily, i.e. only as long as there is an extreme situation
in the state. It also needs to be emphasised that even in such
exceptional cases the awarded and paid pensions may not be
reduced by violating the balance, which is entrenched in the
Constitution, between the interests of the person and society,
i.e. by violating the constitutional principle of proportionality
which implies that when there is a particularly difficult
economic and financial situation in the state and when due to
this there is a necessity to temporarily reduce the awarded and
paid pensions in order to secure vitally important interests of
society and the state and to protect other constitutional values,
the legislator is under obligation to establish a uniform and
non-discriminatory scale of reduction of pensions whereby the
pensions would be reduced in a manner not violating the
proportions of the amounts of the pensions established with
regard to pensioners of the same category prior to the occurrence
of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in
the state.
2.4. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision "While establishing the
amounts of old age pensions by law, one is to take into
consideration the fact as to the amount of contributions that had
been paid when the material preconditions for the payment of
these pensions are created" of Item 2.3 of Chapter II of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 25 November
2002 and the provision "the fact how the person, while being able
to work and economically active, contributed to the accumulation
of the funds of the state social insurance, has to be significant
for the size of his own old age pension of the state social
insurance; a person, who by his contributions contributed to the
accumulation of the funds of the state social insurance more,
must have tangible benefit" of Item 2 of Chapter III of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October
2007 inter alia mean that also when one has to reduce the amounts
of state social insurance old age pensions temporarily and
proportionately due to an extreme situation (economic crisis
etc.) in the state, in the course of establishing such amounts
one has to take account of the size of the contributions and the
length of their payment while creating the preconditions for
payment of such pensions and how the person, while being able to
work and economically active, contributed to the accumulation of
the funds of the state social insurance.
3. The petitioner inter alia requests construction of
whether the provisions "The person who meets the conditions
established by law in order to receive the old age pension, and
who has been awarded and paid this pension, has the right to a
monetary payment of a respective amount, i.e. the right to
possession. Under Article 23 of the Constitution, this right must
be protected and safeguarded. It needs to be noted that the old
age pension is linked with possession in the jurisprudence of the
European Court of Human Rights as well (European Court of Human
Rights, Judgment in the case Wessels-Bergervoet v. Netherlands of
4 June 2002)" of Item 2.3 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of
the Constitutional Court ruling of 25 November 2002 as well as
the provisions that, while reorganising the system of pensionary
maintenance, "<
> the Constitution must be observed in every
case. The system of pensions may be reorganised only by law, only
guaranteeing the old age and disability pensions provided for by
the Constitution, as well as observing undertaken obligations by
the state, which are not in conflict with Constitution, to pay
corresponding payments to persons who meet the requirements
established by the law. If, while reorganising the pensionary
system, the pensions established by the laws which are not
directly specified in Article 52 of the Constitution were
eliminated, or the legal regulation of these pensions were
amended in essence, the legislator would be obligated to
establish a just mechanism for compensation of the existing
losses to the persons who had been granted and paid such
pensions" of Item 3.3 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December 2003 and the provisions
"the right to demand for the payments of pensionary maintenance
which are established by the Constitution or laws that are not in
conflict with the latter, arises from Article 52 of the
Constitution, while under Article 23 of the Constitution the
proprietary aspects of this right are defended (Constitutional
Court rulings of 4 July 2003, 3 December 2003, 13 December 2004
and 22 October 2007). The said circumstance determines the
specific character of the defence of this acquired right
according to Article 23 of the Constitution. This specific
character inter alia means that in case a question arises as to
the defence of the acquired right under Article 23 of the
Constitution, first of all it should be established whether the
requirement to pay the pension is based on Article 52 of the
Constitution and/or other norms of the Constitution
(Constitutional Court ruling of 4 July 2003)" of Item 4 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 24 December 2008:
- mean that even when due to special circumstances (economic
crisis etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic and
financial situation in the state, one must heed the principle of
protection of the acquired right under Article 23 of the
Constitution and apply a certain mechanism for compensation of
the incurred losses;
- imply the duty of the legislator to apply the compensation
mechanisms after the extreme situation (economic crisis etc.) in
the state is over, or also during such situation as well.
3.1. In the context of this decision it has been held that
the correction of the legal regulation by reducing old age
pensions due to the fact that there is an extreme situation in
the state (economic crisis etc.) means restriction of a
constitutional social guarantee of a personthe old age pension.
It has also been mentioned that the person who meets the
conditions established by law in order to receive the old age
pension, and who has been awarded and paid this pension, has the
right to a monetary payment of a respective amount, i.e. the
right to possession; this right must be protected and defended
under Article 23 of the Constitution as well; in the area of the
relations of pensionary maintenance a duty arises to the state to
follow the constitutional principles of protection of legitimate
expectations and legal certainty: the persons who have been
granted and paid a pension established by the Constitution or the
law, under Article 23 of the Constitution have the right to
demand that the payments be paid further to them in the amounts
which were granted and paid previously. In addition, as
mentioned, payment of social insurance contributions entails the
right of the person to receive an old age person of respective
amount and it is not allowed that this amount does not depend on
the amounts of contributions that have been paid. Thus, the
correction of the legal regulation by means of which the old age
pensions are reduced due to the fact that, upon occurrence of an
extreme situation (economic crisis etc.), the economic and
financial situation becomes changed so that the accumulation of
the funds necessary for payment of old age pensions is not
secured, also means that such legal regulation to a certain
extent limits the right of ownership of the person to whom the
old age pension was awarded and paid.
Thus, the legislator, upon occurrence of an extreme
situation, when inter alia due to an economic crisis it is
impossible to accumulate the amount of the funds necessary to pay
old age pensions must, while reducing old age pensions, provide
for a mechanism of just compensation of incurred losses to the
persons to whom such pensions were awarded and paid, whereby,
after the said extreme situation is over, the state would
undertake an obligation before such persons to compensate them,
in a fair manner and within a reasonable time, the losses
incurred by them due to the reduction of the old age pension.
These provisions are applied mutatis mutandis also with
regard to the compensation for the losses which appear due to the
reduction of a disability pension.
3.2. In the context of this decision it has been held that,
if, while reorganising the pensionary system, the legal
regulation of the pensions directly specified in Article 52 of
the Constitution were amended in essence, the legislator would be
obligated to establish a fair mechanism for compensation of the
incurred losses to the persons who had been granted and paid such
pensions. It has also been mentioned that the correction of the
legal regulation by means of which the old age pensions are
reduced to a great extent due to the fact that, upon occurrence
of an extreme situation (economic crisis etc.) the economic and
financial situation becomes changed so that the accumulation of
the funds necessary for payment of old age pensions is not
secured, is an essential amendment to the legal regulation of
these pensions. Thus, the legislator, upon occurrence of an
extreme situation when inter alia due to an economic crisis it is
impossible to accumulate the amount of the funds necessary to pay
state pensions, must, while reducing state pensions to a large
extent, provide for a mechanism of just compensation of incurred
losses to the persons to whom such pensions were awarded and
paid, whereby, after the said extreme situation is over, the
state would undertake an obligation before such persons to
compensate them, in a fair manner and within a reasonable time,
the losses incurred by them due to the reduction of the state
pension.
State pensions differ in their nature and character from old
age pensions of the state social insurance and from other
pensions of the state social insurance; these peculiarities imply
that when there is a particularly difficult economic and
financial situation in the state and when due to this there is a
necessity to temporarily reduce the pensions in order to secure
vitally important interests of society and the state and to
protect other constitutional values, the legislator may reduce
these pensions to a greater extent than old age or disability
pensions. It has been held that these peculiarities also imply
that the losses incurred due to the reduction of state pensions
may be compensated to a smaller extent than the losses incurred
due to the reduction of old age or disability pensions.
3.3. It has also been mentioned that the reduced pensions
may only be paid on a temporary basis, i.e. until there is an
extraordinary situation (inter alia an economic crisis) in the
state, however, this doctrinal provision may not be interpreted
as meaning that, purportedly, the state, after the legislator has
reduced the awarded and paid pensions, is exempted from the duty
to look for ways for accumulation of the funds necessary for
payment of the pensions. Quite to the contrary, if, before the
end of the economic crisis, there arises an opportunity to
accumulate (receive) the funds necessary to pay the pensions in
the amounts that were before the reduction of the pensions, the
legal regulation under which the pensions were reduced must be
abolished.
3.4. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provisions "The person who meets the
conditions established by law in order to receive the old age
pension, and who has been awarded and paid this pension, has the
right to a monetary payment of a respective amount, i.e. the
right to possession. Under Article 23 of the Constitution, this
right must be protected and safeguarded. It needs to be noted
that the old age pension is linked with possession in the
jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights as well
(European Court of Human Rights, Judgment in the case Wessels-
Bergervoet v. Netherlands of 4 June 2002)" of Item 2.3 of Chapter
II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 25
November 2002 as well as the provisions that, while reorganising
the system of pensionary maintenance, "<
> the Constitution must
be observed in every case. The system of pensions may be
reorganised only by law, only guaranteeing the old age and
disability pensions provided for by the Constitution, as well as
observing undertaken obligations by the state, which are not in
conflict with Constitution, to pay corresponding payments to
persons who meet the requirements established by the law. If,
while reorganising the pensionary system, the pensions
established by the laws which are not directly specified in
Article 52 of the Constitution were eliminated, or the legal
regulation of these pensions were amended in essence, the
legislator would be obligated to establish a just mechanism for
compensation of the existing losses to the persons who had been
granted and paid such pensions" of Item 3.3 of Chapter II of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December
2003 and the provisions "the right to demand for the payments of
pensionary maintenance which are established by the Constitution
or laws that are not in conflict with the latter, arises from
Article 52 of the Constitution, while under Article 23 of the
Constitution the proprietary aspects of this right are defended
(Constitutional Court rulings of 4 July 2003, 3 December 2003, 13
December 2004 and 22 October 2007). The said circumstance
determines the specific character of the defence of this acquired
right according to Article 23 of the Constitution. This specific
character inter alia means that in case a question arises as to
the defence of the acquired right under Article 23 of the
Constitution, first of all it should be established whether the
requirement to pay the pension is based on Article 52 of the
Constitution and/or other norms of the Constitution
(Constitutional Court ruling of 4 July 2003)" of Item 4 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 24 December 2008 inter alia mean that:
- even when due to special circumstances (economic crisis
etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic and financial
situation in the state, one must heed the principle of protection
of the acquired right under Article 23 of the Constitution;
- the legislator is under obligation to provide for a
mechanism of compensation of incurred losses to the persons to
whom an old age pension or a disability pension was awarded and
paid whereby, after the said extreme situation is over, the state
would undertake an obligation before such persons to compensate
them, within a reasonable time and in a fair manner, the losses
incurred by them due to the reduction of the old age pension or
the disability pension;
- the legislator is under obligation to provide for a
mechanism of compensation of incurred losses to the persons to
whom a state pension was awarded and paid whereby, after the said
extreme situation is over, the state would undertake an
obligation before such persons to compensate them, within a
reasonable time and in a fair manner, the losses incurred by them
due to the reduction of the state pension to a great extent;
- the losses incurred due to the reduction of state pensions
may be compensated to a smaller extent than the losses incurred
due to the reduction of old age or disability pensions;
- if, before the end of the economic crisis, there arises an
opportunity to accumulate (receive) the funds necessary to pay
the pensions in the amounts that were before the reduction of the
pensions, the legal regulation under which the pensions were
reduced must be abolished.
4. The petitioner inter alia requests construction of
whether the provision "even in such extraordinary cases it is not
permitted that pensions be reduced in violation of the balance
between the interests of the person and society; such reduction
of pensions must be in line with the constitutional principle of
proportionality" of Item 1.9 of Chapter II of the reasoning part
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December 2003 and the
provision "It needs to be noted that even in such extraordinary
cases it is not permitted that pensions be reduced in violation
of the balance between the interests of the person and society;
such reduction of pensions must be in line with the
constitutional principle of proportionality (Constitutional Court
rulings of 4 July 2003 and 3 December 2003)" of Item 4 of Chapter
II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 24
December 2008 mean that when due to special circumstances
(economic crisis etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic
and financial situation in the state:
- the reduction of pensions may not be different to separate
groups of persons and no measures discriminating one or another
social group may be applied;
- it is not allowed to reduce pensions without prior complex
assessment of all interests of an individual and society and
without applying the principles of justice, reasonableness,
proportionality and legal certainty.
4.1. It has been mentioned that there might occur such an
extreme situation (economic crisis etc.) in the state when there
is objective lack of funds for the payment of pensions. In such
extraordinary cases the legal regulation of pensionary relations
may be corrected also by reducing the awarded and paid pensions
to the extent that it is necessary to seek to ensure vitally
important interests of society and protect other constitutional
values. The reduced pensions may be paid only temporarily, i.e.
only as long as there is an extreme situation in the state. Even
in such exceptional cases the pensions may not be reduced in
violation of the balance of the interests of the person and
society, which is entrenched in the Constitution, i.e. such
reduction of the pensions must be in line with the constitutional
principle of proportionality.
4.2. It has been held in this decision that the reduction of
awarded and paid pensions must be in line also with the
constitutional principle of proportionality as one of the
elements of the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law, which, as mentioned, means that:
- the measures provided for in the law must be in line with
the legitimate objectives which are important to society, these
measures must be necessary to reach the said objectives and these
measures may not restrict the rights and freedoms of a person
clearly more than necessary in order to reach these objectives;
- when there is a particularly difficult economic and
financial situation in the state and when due to this there is a
necessity to temporarily reduce the awarded and paid pensions in
order to secure vitally important interests of society and the
state and to protect other constitutional values, the legislator
is under obligation to establish a uniform and non-discriminatory
scale of reduction of awarded and paid pensions whereby the
pensions would be reduced in a manner not violating the
proportions of the amounts of the pensions established with
regard to pensioners of the same category prior to the occurrence
of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in
the state; the constitutional principles of a state under the
rule of law, justice and proportionality do not mean that it is
not allowed to establish a limit in the amount of the pensions
below which the pensions would not be reduced even when there is
a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the
state; while establishing this limit one has to take account of
the circumstance that, under the Constitution, it is not allowed
to establish any such legal regulation whereby the pension
becomes reduced to an amount, where the person receiving the
pension would not be secured the minimal socially acceptable
needs and the living conditions compatible with human dignity;
the pension which secures only minimal socially acceptable needs
and the living conditions compatible with human dignity to the
person who receives the pension, may not be reduced at all.
4.3. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision "even in such extraordinary
cases it is not permitted that pensions be reduced in violation
of the balance between the interests of the person and society;
such reduction of pensions must be in line with the
constitutional principle of proportionality" of Item 1.9 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 3 December 2003 and the provision "It needs to be noted
that even in such extraordinary cases it is not permitted that
pensions be reduced in violation of the balance between the
interests of the person and society; such reduction of pensions
must be in line with the constitutional principle of
proportionality (Constitutional Court rulings of 4 July 2003 and
3 December 2003)" of Item 4 of Chapter II of the reasoning part
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 24 December 2008 inter alia
mean that when there is an especially grave economic and
financial situation in the state and when, due to this, there is
a necessity to temporarily reduce awarded and paid pensions, the
reduction must be in line with the constitutional principle of
proportionality, which implies that:
- the reduction of awarded and paid pensions must be in line
with the legitimate objectives which are important to society,
such reduction must be necessary to reach the said objectives and
may not restrict the rights and freedoms of a person clearly more
than necessary in order to reach these objectives;
- the legislator is under obligation to establish a uniform
and non-discriminatory scale of reduction of awarded and paid
pensions whereby the pensions would be reduced in a manner not
violating the proportions of the amounts of the pensions
established with regard to pensioners of the same category prior
to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and
financial situation in the state;
- it is allowed that a limit be establish in the amount of
the pensions below which the pensions would not be reduced even
when there is a particularly difficult economic and financial
situation in the state; while establishing this limit one has to
take account of the circumstance that, under the Constitution, it
is not allowed to establish any such legal regulation whereby the
pension becomes reduced to an amount, where the person receiving
the pension would not be secured the minimal socially acceptable
needs and the living conditions compatible with human dignity;
the pension which secures only minimal socially acceptable needs
and the living conditions compatible with human dignity to the
person who receives the pension, may not be reduced at all.
5. The petitioner inter alia requests construction of
whether the provision "if the protection of legitimate
expectations, legal certainty and legal security of the person
were not ensured, the confidence of the person in the state and
law would not be ensured" of Item 3.2 of Chapter II of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December
2003 is always applied, or whether it is allowed to disregard
this provision when there is a grave economic situation in the
state.
5.1. It has been held in this decision that the requirements
which stem from the constitutional principles of protection of
legitimate expectations, legal certainty, and legal security must
be heeded also when there is an extreme situation in the state
(economic crisis etc.) due to which the economic and financial
situation in the state has changed to the extent that inter alia
the accumulation of the funds necessary for the payment of
remuneration for work of officials and state servants of the
institutions that are funded from state and municipal budgets
(other employees who are remunerated for work from funds of state
and municipal budgets) or of the funds necessary for the payment
of pensions is not secured and due to this the legal regulation
has to be corrected by reducing the remunerations and pensions of
the said persons.
5.2. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision "if the protection of
legitimate expectations, legal certainty and legal security of
the person were not ensured, the confidence of the person in the
state and law would not be ensured" of Item 3.2 of Chapter II of
the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 3
December 2003 inter alia means that principles of protection of
legitimate expectations, legal certainty, and legal security must
be heeded also when there is an extreme situation in the state
(economic crisis etc.) due to which the economic and financial
situation in the state has changed to the extent that inter alia
the accumulation of the funds necessary for the payment of
remuneration for work of officials and state servants of the
institutions that are funded from state and municipal budgets
(other employees who are remunerated for work from funds of state
and municipal budgets) or of the funds necessary for the payment
of pensions is not secured and due to this the legal regulation
has to be corrected by reducing the remunerations and pensions of
the said persons.
6. The petitioner inter alia requests construction of
whether the provision "principle of equality of persons before
the law would be violated if a certain group of persons, which a
legal norm is addressed to, would be treated in a different
manner comparing to other addressees of the same norm, though
there exist no differences of such nature and scope between those
two groups, which would objectively justify this different
treatment" of Item 5.2 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December 2003 and the provision
"the constitutional principle of equality of all persons before
the law would be violated when a certain group of people to which
the legal norm is ascribed, if compared to other addressees of
the same legal norm, were treated differently, even though there
are not any differences in their character and extent between
these groups that such an uneven treatment would be objectively
justified (Constitutional Court rulings of 20 November 1996, 30
December 2003, 13 December 2004 and 26 September 2007)" of Item
10 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 24 December 2008 mean that the principle of
equality before the law would be violated if, upon occurrence of
an especially grave economic and financial situation in the state
due to special circumstances (economic crisis etc.), in the
course of reduction of pensions to persons of the same social
group the coefficients of different amounts were applied.
6.1. It has been mentioned that old age and disability
pensions are the types of pensions expressis verbis specified in
Article 52 of the Constitution. One is to pay attention to the
fact that the collection of the funds necessary to pay old age
pensions, disability pensions and other state social insurance
pensions and the award of these pensions is based upon social
insurance.
It has also been mentioned that, under the Constitution, the
law may also establish other pensions, not only those which are
expressis verbis specified in Article 52 of the Constitution. It
has been noted that the nature and character of the pensions
whose awarding is not based on social insurance are different
from the nature and character of the pensions which are grounded
on social insurance, as, for instance: state pensions are paid
from the State Budget; they are granted to persons for their
service or merits to the State of Lithuania, as well as the
compensation to victims specified in the law; the receipt of
these pensions is linked not to the social insurance
contributions of pensions of the established size, but to the
corresponding status of the person (service, merits or other
circumstances upon which granting of the state pension depends);
the peculiarities of state pensions permit the legislator, taking
account of all the significant circumstances and heeding the
norms and principles of the Constitution, to establish the
corresponding conditions for granting these pensions; while
paying heed to the Constitution, one may by the law establish the
maximum size of such pensions, as well as consolidate various
ways for the establishment of the maximum size of such pension;
the legislator, taking account of the Constitution, may also
establish certain cases when the state pension is not granted to
the person (under the conditions provided for in the law); one
may, by the law, taking account of the Constitution, establish
also the cases when the granted state pension is no longer paid;
It has also been mentioned that the peculiarities of state
pensions, which, in their nature and character are different from
old age pensions, as well as from disability pensions, imply that
when there is a particularly difficult economic and financial
situation in the state and due to this there is a necessity to
temporarily reduce the pensions in order to secure vitally
important interests of society and the state and to protect other
constitutional values, the legislator may correct the legal
regulation of such pensions of different nature by reducing these
pensions to greater extent than old age and disability pensions.
However, while doing so, the proportions of the amounts of state
pensions established prior to the occurrence of the particularly
grave economic and financial situation in the state may not be
violated.
6.2. It has been held in this decision that the requirement,
which arises from the Constitution, not to establish the legal
regulation under which an opportunity for the person who has been
awarded and paid a pension, inter alia an old age pension, would
be restricted, due to this, to freely choose an occupation and
business, although he meets the conditions provided for by law so
that he would have a certain occupation or conduct certain
business also when there is an extreme situation in the state
(economic crisis etc.) because of which pensions may be reduced;
when there is an especially grave economic and financial
situation in the state and when, due to this, there is a
necessity temporarily to reduce the awarded and paid pensions in
order to secure vitally important interests of society and the
state and to protect other constitutional values, it is not
permitted to establish any such legal regulation whereby the old
age pension or disability pension awarded and paid to the persons
who have a certain occupation or conduct certain business would
be reduced, due to this, to a greater extent if compared with the
persons who do not have any occupation and do not conduct any
business.
6.3. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision "principle of equality of
persons before the law would be violated if a certain group of
persons, which a legal norm is addressed to, would be treated in
a different manner comparing to other addressees of the same
norm, though there exist no differences of such nature and scope
between those two groups, which would objectively justify this
different treatment" of Item 5.2 of Chapter II of the reasoning
part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December 2003 and
the provision "the constitutional principle of equality of all
persons before the law would be violated when a certain group of
people to which the legal norm is ascribed, if compared to other
addressees of the same legal norm, were treated differently, even
though there are not any differences in their character and
extent between these groups that such an uneven treatment would
be objectively justified (Constitutional Court rulings of 20
November 1996, 30 December 2003, 13 December 2004 and 26
September 2007)" of Item 10 of Chapter II of the reasoning part
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 24 December 2008 inter alia
mean that, when there is a particularly difficult economic and
financial situation in the state and when due to this there is a
necessity to temporarily reduce the awarded and paid pensions in
order to secure vitally important interests of society and the
state and to protect other constitutional values:
- the legislator may correct the legal regulation of state
pensions, which in their nature and character are different from
old age pensions as well as from disability pensions, by reducing
these pensions to greater extent than old age and disability
pensions; while doing so, the proportions of the amounts of state
pensions established prior to the occurrence of the particularly
grave economic and financial situation in the state may not be
violated;
- it is not permitted to establish any such legal regulation
whereby the old age pension or disability pension awarded and
paid to the persons who have a certain occupation or conduct
certain business would be reduced, due to this, to a greater
extent if compared with the persons who do not have any
occupation and do not conduct any business.
7. The petitioner inter alia requests construction of
whether the provision "the said legal regulation should create
preconditions to distribute (of course, by taking account inter
alia of the constitutional principle of solidarity, the
constitutional imperatives of social harmony and justice) the
corresponding burden that has fallen upon the state among members
of society, however, it must be distributed in such a manner that
the fulfilment of the duty to pay state social insurance
contributions would not become an overly heavy burden and the
person, due to the fact that he is fulfilling this duty, would
not become the one who needs social assistance himself" of Item 3
of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 26 September 2007 means that:
- also when due to an essentially deteriorated economic and
financial situation of the state or other special situation one
has to reduce, temporarily and proportionately, the amount of the
state social insurance old age pension, the legal regulation
should create preconditions to distribute the corresponding
burden that has fallen upon the state among members of society so
that the fulfilment of the duty to pay state social insurance
contributions would not become an overly heavy burden and the
person, due to the fact that he is fulfilling this duty, would
not become the one who needs social assistance himself;
- also when there is an essential change in the economic and
financial situation of the state and when due to special
circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) there
occurs an especially grave economic and financial situation in
the state, one has to follow the constitutional imperatives of
solidarity, social harmony and justice in the course of
redistributing the corresponding burden that has fallen upon the
state among members of society.
7.1. The provision of the Constitutional Court ruling of 26
September 2007, the construction of which is requested by the
petitioner, is part of a bigger text set forth in Item 3 of
Chapter III of the reasoning part of the said ruling. It inter
alia held the following:
"<...> the legislator not only may, but also must establish
the legal regulation which would create preconditions for the
state to implement its constitutional obligation to guarantee the
right to social security of citizens, to ensure the accumulation
of the funds necessary for pensions and social assistance and the
payment of these pensions and rendition of social assistance. On
the other hand, the burden of the obligations undertaken by the
state falls upon entire society (Constitutional Court ruling of
23 August 2005), therefore the said legal regulation should
create preconditions to distribute (of course, by taking account
inter alia of the constitutional principle of solidarity, the
constitutional imperatives of social harmony and justice) the
corresponding burden that has fallen upon the state among members
of society, however, it must be distributed in such a manner that
the fulfilment of the duty to pay state social insurance
contributions would not become an overly heavy burden and the
person, due to the fact that he is fulfilling this duty, would
not become the one who needs social assistance."
7.2. It has been mentioned that such a model of state social
insurance is based on the principles of universality and
solidarity; the principle of universality means that all working
persons (with some exceptions) who receive insured income from
their activity, must pay state social insurance contributions,
while the principle of solidarity means that the working
(pursuing active economic activities) persons who receive insured
income contribute to accumulation of social insurance funds, thus
creating preconditions to pay payments to those persons, who must
be paid the payments provided for in the law due to the fact that
they have reached the pensionable age for old age pension,
disability in their regard has been recognised or there are other
reasons provided for in the law (inter alia when these members of
society cannot work and provide for themselves due to the
objective reasons provided for in the law and they at that time
need social assistance).
7.3. It has also been mentioned that, by means of the funds
collected during the running period from compulsory state social
insurance contributions of working persons, the pensionary
payouts of the persons who receive the old age pension at that
time is financed, but not the future old age pensions of the
persons who pay such contributions. The fact that in Lithuania
one chose such a system of pensions whereby the funds collected
from the compulsory state social insurance contributions is the
main source of financing the system of pensions cannot be
questioned with regard to its compliance with the Constitution.
7.4. It has also been mentioned that the state is under
constitutional obligation to guarantee the right to social
security of citizens, to ensure the accumulation of the funds
necessary for pensions and social assistance and the payment of
these pensions and rendition of social assistance. It needs to be
noted that the requirement that the state distribute the
corresponding burden that has fallen upon it among members of
society inter alia in such a manner that the fulfilment of the
duty to pay state social insurance contributions would not become
an overly heavy burden to a person and this person, due to the
fact that he is fulfilling this duty, would not become the one
who needs social assistance himself, stems from the
constitutional principle of solidarity, the constitutional
imperatives of social harmony and justice.
It has been held in this decision that the aforesaid
requirements (which stem from the constitutional principles of
justice and social solidarity) and other constitutional
imperatives must be heeded also when there is an extreme
situation in the state (economic crisis etc.) due to which the
economic and financial situation in the state has changed to the
extent that inter alia the accumulation of the funds necessary
for the payment of remuneration for work of officials and state
servants of the institutions that are funded from state and
municipal budgets (other employees who are remunerated for work
from funds of state and municipal budgets) or of the funds
necessary for the payment of pensions is not secured and due to
this the legal regulation has to be corrected by reducing the
remunerations and pensions of the said persons.
7.5. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision "the said legal regulation
should create preconditions to distribute (of course, by taking
account inter alia of the constitutional principle of solidarity,
the constitutional imperatives of social harmony and justice) the
corresponding burden that has fallen upon the state among members
of society, however, it must be distributed in such a manner that
the fulfilment of the duty to pay state social insurance
contributions would not become an overly heavy burden and the
person, due to the fact that he is fulfilling this duty, would
not become the one who needs social assistance himself" of Item 3
of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 26 September 2007 inter alia means that, when there is
an exceptionally grave economic and financial situation (economic
crisis etc.) in the state:
- the legal regulation must create preconditions for the
state to distribute the corresponding burden that has fallen upon
it among members of society in such a manner that the fulfilment
of the duty to pay state social insurance contributions would not
become an overly heavy burden to a person and this person, due to
the fact that he is fulfilling this duty, would not become the
one who needs social assistance himself;
- one has to follow the constitutional imperatives of
solidarity, social harmony and justice in the course of
redistributing the corresponding burden that has fallen upon the
state among members of society.
8. The petitioner inter alia requests construction of
whether the provision "the social orientation of the State of
Lithuania which is consolidated in the Constitution obliges the
state to pay heed to the guarantees of pensions (inter alia state
pensions) and other social (material) guarantees which, by the
way, stem not only from Article 52 of the Constitution, but also
from other provisions of the Constitution, or, for example, from
Paragraph 2 of Article 30, Articles 38, 39, 41, 48, Paragraph 1
of Article 51 and Article 146 thereof, the imperative of reality,
thus, it obliges to revise once established (and applied) social
(material) guarantees, in particular if they are linked with
certain periodic payments (such as pensions), to revise (increase
their sizes) in particular if economic or social situation
undergoes such changes so that the said established (and applied)
guarantees depreciate a lot, moreover, if they become nominal in
general (in this case, one must also have in mind the reservation
regarding the proportionality and temporary reduction of the
payments when it is necessary for the protection of other
constitutional values which is specified in this and other
Constitutional Court rulings)" of Item 6 of Chapter III of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October
2007 means that even when there is an extreme situation in the
state (economic crisis etc.) and due to this proportionately and
temporarily payments are reduced, one must pay attention to the
fact that such payments would not become only nominal.
8.1. This request of the petitioner is to be treated as the
request for construction whether even when there is an extreme
situation in the state (economic crisis etc.) and due to this
proportionately and temporarily pensions are reduced, one must
pay attention to the fact that such pensions would not become
only nominal.
8.2. The aforesaid provision of the constitutional doctrine
establishes the duty of the legislator to revise once established
(and applied) social (material) guarantees, in particular if they
are linked with certain periodic payments (such as pensions), to
revise (increase their sizes) in particular if economic or social
situation undergoes such changes so that the said established
(and applied) guarantees depreciate a lot, moreover, if they
become nominal in general. It needs to be emphasised that this
provision provides expressis verbis for a reservationwhen
pensions and other guarantees of social (material) nature are
reduced proportionately and temporarily, if it is necessary for
the protection of other constitutional values.
In this context it needs to be noted that, as mentioned, the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law,
justice and proportionality do not mean that it is not allowed to
establish a limit in the amount of the pensions below which the
pensions would not be reduced even when there is a particularly
difficult economic and financial situation in the state; while
establishing this limit one has to take account of the
circumstance that, under the Constitution, it is not allowed to
establish any such legal regulation whereby the pension becomes
reduced to an amount, where the person receiving the pension
would not be secured the minimal socially acceptable needs and
the living conditions compatible with human dignity; the pension
which secures only minimal socially acceptable needs and the
living conditions compatible with human dignity to the person who
receives the pension, may not be reduced at all.
8.3. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision "the social orientation of
the State of Lithuania which is consolidated in the Constitution
obliges the state to pay heed to the guarantees of pensions
(inter alia state pensions) and other social (material)
guarantees which, by the way, stem not only from Article 52 of
the Constitution, but also from other provisions of the
Constitution, or, for example, from Paragraph 2 of Article 30,
Articles 38, 39, 41, 48, Paragraph 1 of Article 51 and Article
146 thereof, the imperative of reality, thus, it obliges to
revise once established (and applied) social (material)
guarantees, in particular if they are linked with certain
periodic payments (such as pensions), to revise (increase their
sizes) in particular if economic or social situation undergoes
such changes so that the said established (and applied)
guarantees depreciate a lot, moreover, if they become nominal in
general (in this case, one must also have in mind the reservation
regarding the proportionality and temporary reduction of the
payments when it is necessary for the protection of other
constitutional values which is specified in this and other
Constitutional Court rulings)" of Item 6 of Chapter III of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October
2007 inter alia means that, under the Constitution, it is not
allowed to establish any such legal regulation whereby the
pension becomes reduced to an amount, where the person receiving
the pension would not be secured the minimal socially acceptable
needs and the living conditions compatible with human dignity;
the pension which secures only minimal socially acceptable needs
and the living conditions compatible with human dignity to the
person who receives the pension, may not be reduced at all.
9. The petitioner inter alia requests construction of
whether the provision "when the economic and financial situation
of the country deteriorates considerably, when due to particular
circumstances (economic crisis, natural disasters, etc.), an
extremely difficult economic and financial situation has occurred
in the state" of Item 9.2 of Chapter IV of the reasoning part of
the Constitutional Court ruling of 22 October 2007 means that the
occurrence of an especially grave economic and financial
situation in the state must be confirmed on the grounds of the
state economic and financial indicators which must be confirmed
annually as long as such a situation continues to exist.
9.1. It has been mentioned that from the constitutional
institute of a budget year, a duty arises to the legislator, in
the course of deliberating and approving the State Budget for the
next year, to reassess the actual economic and financial
situation in the state and to decide whether the said situation
is still a particularly grave one, inter alia whether the
collection of the State Budget revenue is still disordered to the
extent that due to this the state is unable to perform the
obligations undertaken by it and, due to this, whether also for
the next budget year one has to establish the legal regulation
whereby the reduced remunerations and pensions will have to be
paid.
9.2. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision "when the economic and
financial situation of the country deteriorates considerably,
when due to particular circumstances (economic crisis, natural
disasters, etc.), an extremely difficult economic and financial
situation has occurred in the state" of Item 9.2 of Chapter IV of
the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22
October 2007 inter alia means that from the constitutional
institute of a budget year, a duty arises to the legislator, in
the course of deliberating and approving the State Budget for the
next year, to reassess the actual economic and financial
situation in the state and to decide whether the said situation
is still a particularly grave one, inter alia whether the
collection of the State Budget revenue is still disordered to the
extent that due to this the state is unable to perform the
obligations undertaken by it and, due to this, whether also for
the next budget year one has to establish the legal regulation
whereby the reduced remunerations and pensions will have to be
paid.
10. The petitioner inter alia requests construction of
whether the provision of Item 8.6 of Chapter II of the reasoning
part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 24 December 2008 that
justice "may be implemented by ensuring certain equilibrium of
interests, by escaping fortuity and arbitrariness, instability of
social life and conflict of interests (Constitutional Court
ruling of 3 December 2003)" means that when due to special
circumstances (economic crisis etc.) upon occurrence of an
especially grave economic and financial situation in the state,
in the course of adoption of decisions to reduce pensions one
must avoid fortuity and arbitrariness, instability of social life
and conflict of interests.
10.1. The provision of the Constitutional Court ruling of 24
December 2008, the construction of which is requested by the
petitioner, is part of a bigger text set forth in Item 8.6 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the said ruling. It inter
alia held the following:
"<...> the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law is inseparable from the principle of justice, and
vice versa. The Constitutional Court has held in its rulings more
than once that justice is one of the basic objectives of law, as
the means of regulation of social relations. It is one of basic
moral values and one of basic foundations of a state under the
rule of law. It may be implemented by ensuring certain
equilibrium of interests, by escaping fortuity and arbitrariness,
instability of social life and conflict of interests
(Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December 2003)."
10.2. It has been mentioned that the requirements which stem
from the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of
law and justice must be heeded also when there is an extreme
situation in the state (economic crisis etc.) due to which the
economic and financial situation in the state has changed to the
extent that inter alia the accumulation of the funds necessary
for the payment of remuneration for work of officials and state
servants of the institutions that are funded from state and
municipal budgets (other employees who are remunerated for work
from funds of state and municipal budgets) or of the funds
necessary for the payment of pensions is not secured and due to
this the legal regulation has to be corrected by reducing the
remunerations and pensions of the said persons.
10.3. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision of Item 8.6 of Chapter II of
the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 24
December 2008 that justice "may be implemented by ensuring
certain equilibrium of interests, by escaping fortuity and
arbitrariness, instability of social life and conflict of
interests (Constitutional Court ruling of 3 December 2003)" inter
alia means that when the economic and financial situation of the
country deteriorates considerably, when due to particular
circumstances (economic crisis, etc.), an extremely difficult
economic and financial situation has occurred in the state, in
the course of adoption of decisions to reduce pensions one must
follow the requirements (which stem from the constitutional
principles of a state under the rule of law and justice) of
avoiding fortuity and arbitrariness, instability of social life
and conflict of interests.
11. The petitioner inter alia requests construction of
whether the provision "the legislator may change the legal
regulation which establishes the salaries to various persons, and
consolidate the legal regulation on the salaries which would be
less favourable to these persons, if it is necessary in order to
ensure the vital interests of society and the state and to
protect other constitutional values" of Item 9.2 of Chapter IV of
the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22
October 2007 and the provision "when the economic and financial
situation of the country deteriorates considerably, when due to
particular circumstances (economic crisis, natural disasters,
etc.), an extremely difficult economic and financial situation
has occurred in the state" of the same item mean that, when upon
occurrence of an extremely difficult economic and financial
situation in the state due to particular circumstances (economic
crisis etc.), one has to follow the principle of proportionality
in the course of reduction of remunerations to various persons.
11.1. The provision of the Constitutional Court ruling of 22
October 2007, the construction of which is requested by the
petitioner, is part of a bigger text set forth in Item 9.2 of
Chapter IV of the reasoning part of the said ruling. It inter
alia held the following:
"On the other hand, when the economic and financial
situation of the country deteriorates considerably, when due to
particular circumstances (economic crisis, natural disasters,
etc.), an extremely difficult economic and financial situation
has occurred in the state, due to objective reasons, there may be
not enough funds in order to implement the functions of the state
and to satisfy the public interests, thus, also to ensure the
material and financial needs of courts. Under such circumstances,
the legislator may change the legal regulation which establishes
the salaries to various persons, and to consolidate the legal
regulation on the salaries which would be less favourable to
these persons, if it is necessary in order to ensure the vital
interests of society and the state and to protect other
constitutional values. However, also in such cases the legislator
must keep the balance between the rights and legitimate interests
of the persons, to whom the less favourable legal regulation is
established and the interests of society and the state, i.e. to
pay heed to the requirements of the principle of proportionality.
In addition, in case of a difficult economic and financial
situation, usually the financing from the budget to all the
institutions which implement state powers, as well as the
financing of various spheres which are financed from the
resources of the budgets of the state and municipalities, should
be revised and reduced."
11.2. It has been held in this decision that the reduction
of remunerations must be in line also with the constitutional
principle of proportionality as one of the elements of the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, which,
as mentioned, means that:
- the measures provided for in the law must be in line with
the legitimate objectives which are important to society; these
measures must be necessary to reach the said objectives and may
not restrict the rights and freedoms of a person clearly more
than necessary in order to reach these objectives;
- when there is a particularly difficult economic and
financial situation in the state and when due to this there is a
necessity to temporarily reduce the remuneration for work of
officials and state servants of the institutions that are funded
from state and municipal budgets (other employees who are
remunerated for work from funds of state and municipal budgets)
in order to secure vitally important interests of society and the
state and to protect other constitutional values, the legislator
is under obligation to establish a uniform and non-discriminatory
scale of reduction of remuneration of officials and state
servants of the institutions that are funded from state and
municipal budgets (other employees who are remunerated for work
from funds of state and municipal budgets) whereby with respect
to all categories of officials and state servants of the
institutions that are funded from state and municipal budgets
(other employees who are remunerated for work from funds of state
and municipal budgets) the remunerations would be reduced in a
manner not violating the proportions of the amounts of the
remunerations established with regard to different categories of
officials and state servants of the institutions that are funded
from state and municipal budgets (other employees who are
remunerated for work from funds of state and municipal budgets)
prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic
and financial situation in the state; the constitutional
principles of a state under the rule of law, equality of rights,
justice and proportionality do not mean that it is not allowed to
establish the limit upon the amount of the remuneration of
officials and state servants of the institutions that are funded
from state and municipal budgets (other employees who are
remunerated for work from funds of state and municipal budgets)
below which it would not be permitted to reduce the established
remuneration of officials and state servants of the institutions
that are funded from state and municipal budgets (other employees
who are remunerated for work from funds of state and municipal
budgets) even when there is a particularly difficult economic and
financial situation in the state; while establishing this limit,
one has to take account of the circumstance that, under the
Constitution, it is not allowed to establish any such legal
regulation whereby the remuneration of officials and state
servants of the institutions that are funded from state and
municipal budgets (other employees who are remunerated for work
from funds of state and municipal budgets) becomes reduced to an
amount, where the minimal socially acceptable needs and the
living conditions compatible with human dignity would not be
secured.
11.3. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision "the legislator may change
the legal regulation which establishes the salaries to various
persons, and consolidate the legal regulation on the salaries
which would be less favourable to these persons, if it is
necessary in order to ensure the vital interests of society and
the state and to protect other constitutional values" of Item 9.2
of Chapter IV of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 22 October 2007 and the provision "when the economic
and financial situation of the country deteriorates considerably,
when due to particular circumstances (economic crisis, natural
disasters, etc.), an extremely difficult economic and financial
situation has occurred in the state" of the same item inter alia
mean that the reduction of remunerations must be in line with the
constitutional principle of proportionality as one of elements of
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law,
which implies that:
- the reduction of remunerations must be in line with the
legitimate objectives which are important to society, such
reduction must be necessary to reach the said objectives and may
not restrict the rights and freedoms of a person clearly more
than necessary in order to reach these objectives;
- when there is a particularly difficult economic and
financial situation in the state and when due to this there is a
necessity to temporarily reduce the remuneration for work of
officials and state servants of the institutions that are funded
from state and municipal budgets (other employees who are
remunerated for work from funds of state and municipal budgets)
in order to secure vitally important interests of society and the
state and to protect other constitutional values, the legislator
is under obligation to establish a uniform and non-discriminatory
scale of reduction of remuneration for work of officials and
state servants of the institutions that are funded from state and
municipal budgets (other employees who are remunerated for work
from funds of state and municipal budgets) whereby with respect
to all categories of officials and state servants of the
institutions that are funded from state and municipal budgets
(other employees who are remunerated for work from funds of state
and municipal budgets) the remunerations would be reduced in a
manner not violating the proportions of the amounts of the
remunerations established with regard to different categories of
officials and state servants of the institutions that are funded
from state and municipal budgets (other employees who are
remunerated for work from funds of state and municipal budgets)
prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic
and financial situation in the state;
- it is allowed to establish the limit upon the amount of
the remuneration of officials and state servants of the
institutions that are funded from state and municipal budgets
(other employees who are remunerated for work from funds of state
and municipal budgets) below which it would not be permitted to
reduce the established remuneration of officials and state
servants of the institutions that are funded from state and
municipal budgets (other employees who are remunerated for work
from funds of state and municipal budgets) even when there is a
particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the
state; while establishing this limit, one has to take account of
the circumstance that, under the Constitution, it is not allowed
to establish any such legal regulation whereby the remuneration
of officials and state servants of the institutions that are
funded from state and municipal budgets (other employees who are
remunerated for work from funds of state and municipal budgets)
becomes reduced to an amount, where the minimal socially
acceptable needs and the living conditions compatible with human
dignity would not be secured.
12. The petitioner inter alia requests construction of
whether the provision "<
> when due to an extremely difficult
economic and financial situation in the state the legislator
adopts a decision to reduce the remuneration for work of
officials and other state servants (employees) of the
institutions that are funded from state and municipal budgets, it
must be ascertained that the economic and financial situation of
the state is so difficult that it calls for a necessity to reduce
the remuneration for work of the said officials and state
servants (employees). <
> such reduction of the remuneration for
work must be temporary and grounded upon the circumstances of the
extremely difficult economic and financial situation in the
state" of Item 10 of Chapter IV of the Constitutional Court
decision of 15 January 2009 means that the temporary reduction of
the remuneration for work must be continually corrected during
the budget year by taking account of the collection plan of the
state budget revenues, or whether it must be corrected during a
two- or three-year period, or even during a longer period (until
the short-term crisis in the state is over).
12.1. The provision of the Constitutional Court decision of
15 January 2009, the construction of which is requested by the
petitioner, is part of a bigger text set forth in Item 10 of
Chapter IV of the reasoning part of the said decision. It inter
alia held the following:
"<...> when due to an extremely difficult economic and
financial situation in the state the legislator adopts a decision
to reduce the remuneration for work of officials and other state
servants (employees) of the institutions that are funded from
state and municipal budgets, it must be ascertained that the
economic and financial situation of the state is so difficult
that it calls for a necessity to reduce the remuneration for work
of the said officials and state servants (employees). It also
needs to be noted that such reduction of the remuneration for
work must be temporary and grounded upon the circumstances of the
extremely difficult economic and financial situation in the
state, as, for instance, the collection of the state budget
revenue is disordered to the extent that due to this the state is
unable to perform the obligations undertaken by it, and such
situation in the state is not short-termed."
12.2. As mentioned, the provision of the official
constitutional doctrinethe reduction of the remuneration for
work must be temporaryimplies that in cases when the economic
and financial situation of the state deteriorates considerably
and the legislator decides to amend the legal regulation whereby
remunerations are established to various persons and to entrench
a less favourable legal regulation with respect to these persons,
i.e. adopts a decision to reduce the remuneration for work of
officials of institutions which are financed from the funds of
state and municipal budgets (and of other employees who are paid
for their work from the funds of state and municipal budgets) as
well as that of state servants, the reduced remunerations may be
paid only temporarily, i.e. until there is the corresponding
extreme situation in the state. When the especially grave
economic and financial situation is over, the former amounts of
the remunerations of officials of institutions which are financed
from the funds of state and municipal budgets (and of other
employees who are paid for their work from the funds of state and
municipal budgets) as well as those of state servants, which were
established in the state prior to occurrence of the said
situation, must be applied as before.
12.3. It has also been mentioned that the doctrinal
provision that the reduction of remuneration for work must be
temporary may not be interpreted as meaning that the state, after
the legislator has reduced the remunerations of officials of
institutions which are financed from the funds of state and
municipal budgets (and of other employees who are paid for their
work from the funds of state and municipal budgets) as well as
those of state servants, is released from the duty to look for
ways of securing the accumulation of the funds necessary to pay
the remunerations in the amounts that were prior to their
reduction. Quite to the contrary, if, before the end of the
economic crisis, there arises an opportunity to accumulate
(receive) the funds necessary to pay the remunerations in the
amounts that were before the reduction of the remunerations, the
legal regulation under which the remunerations for work of
officials of institutions which are financed from the funds of
state and municipal budgets (and of other employees who are paid
for their work from the funds of state and municipal budgets) as
well as those of state servants were reduced must be abolished.
12.4. As mentioned, only after there is an official
statement that there is an exceptionally grave economic and
financial situation due to which the state is unable to perform
the obligations undertaken by it, the legislator may reduce,
temporarily, the remunerations of officials and state servants of
the state institutions that are funded from state and municipal
budgets (other employees who are remunerated for work from funds
of state and municipal budgets). This statement must be
substantiated by the circumstances testifying about the existence
of an especially grave economic and financial situation in the
state. The constitutional institute of a budget year implies that
when there is an extreme situation in the state (economic crisis
etc.) due to which the economic and financial situation in the
state has changed to the extent that inter alia the accumulation
of the funds necessary for the payment of remuneration for work
of officials and state servants of the institutions that are
funded from state and municipal budgets (other employees who are
remunerated for work from funds of state and municipal budgets)
is not secured and due to this the legal regulation has to be
corrected by reducing the remunerations of the said persons, the
reduction of the remunerations is allowed for no longer than one
budget year. From the constitutional institute of a budget year,
a duty arises to the legislator, in the course of deliberating
and approving the State Budget for the next year, to reassess the
actual economic and financial situation in the state and to
decide whether the said situation is still a particularly grave
one, inter alia whether the collection of the State Budget
revenue is still disordered to the extent that due to this the
state is unable to perform the obligations undertaken by it and,
due to this, whether also for the next budget year one has to
establish the legal regulation whereby the reduced remunerations
will have to be paid.
12.5. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision "<
> when due to an
extremely difficult economic and financial situation in the state
the legislator adopts a decision to reduce the remuneration for
work of officials and other state servants (employees) of the
institutions that are funded from state and municipal budgets, it
must be ascertained that the economic and financial situation of
the state is so difficult that it calls for a necessity to reduce
the remuneration for work of the said officials and state
servants (employees). <
> such reduction of the remuneration for
work must be temporary and grounded upon the circumstances of the
extremely difficult economic and financial situation in the
state" of Item 10 of Chapter IV of the Constitutional Court
decision of 15 January 2009 inter alia means that:
- only after there is an official statement that there is an
exceptionally grave economic and financial situation, which is
not short-termed, due to which the state is unable to perform the
obligations undertaken by it, the legislator may reduce,
temporarily, the remunerations of officials and state servants of
the institutions that are funded from state and municipal budgets
(other employees who are remunerated for work from funds of state
and municipal budgets);
- the establishment of only such legal regulation is allowed
whereby the reduced remunerations would be paid only temporarily,
i.e. as long as the corresponding extreme situation in the state
continues to exist, inter alia when due to the economic crisis it
is impossible to collect the budget revenues necessary for the
payment of remunerations;
- the constitutional institute of a budget year implies that
when there is an extreme situation in the state (economic crisis
etc.) due to which the economic and financial situation in the
state has changed to the extent that inter alia the accumulation
of the funds necessary for the payment of remuneration for work
of officials and state servants of the institutions that are
funded from state and municipal budgets (other employees who are
remunerated for work from funds of state and municipal budgets)
is not secured and due to this the legal regulation has to be
corrected by reducing the remunerations of the said persons, the
reduction of the remunerations is allowed for no longer than one
budget year; from the constitutional institute of a budget year,
a duty arises to the legislator, in the course of deliberating
and approving the State Budget for the next year, to reassess the
actual economic and financial situation in the state and to
decide whether the said situation is still a particularly grave
one, inter alia whether the collection of the State Budget
revenue is still disordered to the extent that due to this the
state is unable to perform the obligations undertaken by it and,
due to this, whether also for the next budget year one has to
establish the legal regulation whereby the reduced remunerations
will have to be paid;
- when the especially grave economic and financial situation
is over, the former amounts of the remunerations of officials of
institutions which are financed from the funds of state and
municipal budgets (and of other employees who are paid for their
work from the funds of state and municipal budgets) as well as
those of state servants, which were established in the state
prior to occurrence of the said situation, must be applied as
before;
- if, before the end of the economic crisis, there arises an
opportunity to accumulate (receive) the funds necessary to pay
the remunerations in the amounts that were before the reduction
of the remunerations, the legal regulation under which the
remunerations for work of officials of institutions which are
financed from the funds of state and municipal budgets (and of
other employees who are paid for their work from the funds of
state and municipal budgets) as well as those of state servants
were reduced must be abolished.
13. The petitioner inter alia requests construction of
whether the provision "the collection of the state budget revenue
is disordered to the extent that due to this the state is unable
to perform the obligations undertaken by it, and such situation
in the state is not short-termed" of Item 10 of Chapter IV of the
Constitutional Court decision of 15 January 2009 includes the
entire budget year, or a longer period.
13.1. The provision of the Constitutional Court decision of
15 January 2009, the construction of which is requested by the
petitioner, is part of a bigger text set forth in Item 10 of
Chapter IV of the reasoning part of the said decision. It inter
alia held the following:
"<
> when due to an extremely difficult economic and
financial situation in the state the legislator adopts a decision
to reduce the remuneration for work of officials and other state
servants (employees) of the institutions that are funded from
state and municipal budgets, it must be ascertained that the
economic and financial situation of the state is so difficult
that it calls for a necessity to reduce the remuneration for work
of the said officials and state servants (employees). It also
needs to be noted that such reduction of the remuneration for
work must be temporary and grounded upon the circumstances of the
extremely difficult economic and financial situation in the
state, as, for instance, the collection of the state budget
revenue is disordered to the extent that due to this the state is
unable to perform the obligations undertaken by it, and such
situation in the state is not short-termed."
13.2. The said provision of the official constitutional
doctrine that there is an especially grave economic and financial
situation in the state is not short-termed implies that such a
situation may last for one budget year, or for a longer period of
time.
13.3. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision "the collection of the state
budget revenue is disordered to the extent that due to this the
state is unable to perform the obligations undertaken by it, and
such situation in the state is not short-termed" of Item 10 of
Chapter IV of the Constitutional Court decision of 15 January
2009 inter alia means that an especially grave economic and
financial situation in the state where the collection of the
State Budget revenue is disordered to the extent that due to this
the state is unable to perform the obligations undertaken by it,
and when such a situation is not to be regarded as a short-termed
one, may last either for one budget year, or for a longer period
of time.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1 and 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has passed the
following
decision:
1. To construe that the provision "The legal regulation
under which the person cannot freely choose an occupation and
business due to the fact that upon the implementation of this
right he would not be paid the awarded old age pension or part
thereof which was paid until then, also must be considered as a
restriction of an opportunity to freely choose an occupation or
business" of Item 2.2 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the
25 November 2002 ruling of the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Lithuania (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002,
No. 113-5057) and the provision "under the Constitution, it is
not permitted to establish any such legal regulation under which
an opportunity for the person, who has been granted and paid the
old age pension, would be restricted, due to this, to freely
choose an occupation and business, although he meets the
conditions provided for by law so that he would have a certain
occupation or conduct certain business; the legal regulation
under which the person cannot freely choose an occupation and
business due to the fact that upon the implementation of this
right he would not be paid the granted old age pension or part
thereof which was paid until then, also must be considered as a
restriction of an opportunity to freely choose an occupation or
business" of Item 5 of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the
22 October 2007 ruling of Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2007, No. 110-4511)
inter alia mean that, under the Constitution, the legal
regulation where the person is not allowed to freely choose a job
or business due to the fact that upon implementation of this
right he would not be paid the old age pension (or part thereof)
which was awarded and paid until then, cannot be established also
when due to special circumstances (economic crisis, natural
disaster etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic and
financial situation in the state; it is not permitted to
establish any such legal regulation whereby the old age pension
awarded and paid to the persons who have a certain occupation or
conduct certain business would be reduced, due to this, to a
greater extent if compared with the persons who do not have any
occupation and do not conduct any business.
2. To construe that the provision "While establishing the
amounts of old age pensions by law, one is to take into
consideration the fact as to the amount of contributions that had
been paid when the material preconditions for the payment of
these pensions are created" of Item 2.3 of Chapter II of the
reasoning part of the 25 November 2002 ruling of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 113-5057) and the provision
"the fact how the person, while being able to work and
economically active, contributed to the accumulation of the funds
of the state social insurance, has to be significant for the size
of his own old age pension of the state social insurance; a
person, who by his contributions contributed to the accumulation
of the funds of the state social insurance more, must have
tangible benefit" of Item 2 of Chapter III of the reasoning part
of the 22 October 2007 ruling of the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Lithuania (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2007,
No. 110-4511) inter alia mean that also when one has to reduce
the amounts of state social insurance old age pensions
temporarily and proportionately due to an extreme situation
(economic crisis etc.) in the state, in the course of
establishing such amounts one has to take account of the size of
the contributions and the length of their payment while creating
the preconditions for payment of such pensions and how the
person, while being able to work and economically active,
contributed to the accumulation of the funds of the state social
insurance.
3. To construe that the provisions "The person who meets the
conditions established by law in order to receive the old age
pension, and who has been awarded and paid this pension, has the
right to a monetary payment of a respective amount, i.e. the
right to possession. Under Article 23 of the Constitution, this
right must be protected and safeguarded. It needs to be noted
that the old age pension is linked with possession in the
jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights as well
(European Court of Human Rights, Judgment in the case Wessels-
Bergervoet v. Netherlands of 4 June 2002)" of Item 2.3 of Chapter
II of the reasoning part of the 25 November 2002 ruling of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 113-5057) as well as the
provisions that, while reorganising the system of pensionary
maintenance, "<
> the Constitution must be observed in every
case. The system of pensions may be reorganised only by law, only
guaranteeing the old age and disability pensions provided for by
the Constitution, as well as observing undertaken obligations by
the state, which are not in conflict with Constitution, to pay
corresponding payments to persons who meet the requirements
established by the law. If, while reorganising the pensionary
system, the pensions established by the laws which are not
directly specified in Article 52 of the Constitution were
eliminated, or the legal regulation of these pensions were
amended in essence, the legislator would be obligated to
establish a just mechanism for compensation of the existing
losses to the persons who had been granted and paid such
pensions" of Item 3.3 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the
3 December 2003 ruling of the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Lithuania (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2003,
No. 115-5221) and the provisions "the right to demand for the
payments of pensionary maintenance which are established by the
Constitution or laws that are not in conflict with the latter,
arises from Article 52 of the Constitution, while under Article
23 of the Constitution the proprietary aspects of this right are
defended (Constitutional Court rulings of 4 July 2003, 3 December
2003, 13 December 2004 and 22 October 2007). The said
circumstance determines the specific character of the defence of
this acquired right according to Article 23 of the Constitution.
This specific character inter alia means that in case a question
arises as to the defence of the acquired right under Article 23
of the Constitution, first of all it should be established
whether the requirement to pay the pension is based on Article 52
of the Constitution and/or other norms of the Constitution
(Constitutional Court ruling of 4 July 2003)" of Item 4 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the 24 December 2008 ruling
of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2008, No. 150-6106) inter
alia mean that:
- even when due to special circumstances (economic crisis
etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic and financial
situation in the state, one must heed the principle of protection
of the acquired right under Article 23 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania;
- the legislator is under obligation to provide for a
mechanism of compensation of incurred losses to the persons to
whom an old age pension or a disability pension was awarded and
paid whereby, after the said extreme situation is over, the state
would undertake an obligation before such persons to compensate
them, within a reasonable time and in a fair manner, the losses
incurred by them due to the reduction of the old age pension or
the disability pension;
- the legislator is under obligation to provide for a
mechanism of compensation of incurred losses to the persons to
whom a state pension was awarded and paid whereby, after the said
extreme situation is over, the state would undertake an
obligation before such persons to compensate them, within a
reasonable time and in a fair manner, the losses incurred by them
due to the reduction of the state pension to a great extent;
- the losses incurred due to the reduction of state pensions
may be compensated to a smaller extent than the losses incurred
due to the reduction of old age or disability pensions;
- if, before the end of the economic crisis, there arises an
opportunity to accumulate (receive) the funds necessary to pay
the pensions in the amounts that were before the reduction of the
pensions, the legal regulation under which the pensions were
reduced must be abolished.
4. To construe that the provision "even in such
extraordinary cases it is not permitted that pensions be reduced
in violation of the balance between the interests of the person
and society; such reduction of pensions must be in line with the
constitutional principle of proportionality" of Item 1.9 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the 3 December 2003 ruling of
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2003, No. 115-5221) and the provision
"It needs to be noted that even in such extraordinary cases it is
not permitted that pensions be reduced in violation of the
balance between the interests of the person and society; such
reduction of pensions must be in line with the constitutional
principle of proportionality (Constitutional Court rulings of 4
July 2003 and 3 December 2003)" of Item 4 of Chapter II of the
reasoning part of the 24 December 2008 ruling of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2008, Nr. 150-6106) inter alia mean
that when there is an especially grave economic and financial
situation in the state and when, due to this, there is a
necessity to temporarily reduce awarded and paid pensions, the
reduction must be in line with the constitutional principle of
proportionality, which implies that:
- the reduction of awarded and paid pensions must be in line
with the legitimate objectives which are important to society,
such reduction must be necessary to reach the said objectives and
may not restrict the rights and freedoms of a person clearly more
than necessary in order to reach these objectives;
- the legislator is under obligation to establish a uniform
and non-discriminatory scale of reduction of awarded and paid
pensions whereby the pensions would be reduced in a manner not
violating the proportions of the amounts of the pensions
established with regard to pensioners of the same category prior
to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and
financial situation in the state;
- it is allowed that a limit be establish in the amount of
the pensions below which the pensions would not be reduced even
when there is a particularly difficult economic and financial
situation in the state; while establishing this limit one has to
take account of the circumstance that, under the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania, it is not allowed to establish any
such legal regulation whereby the pension becomes reduced to an
amount, where the person receiving the pension would not be
secured the minimal socially acceptable needs and the living
conditions compatible with human dignity; the pension which
secures only minimal socially acceptable needs and the living
conditions compatible with human dignity to the person who
receives the pension, may not be reduced at all.
5. To construe that the provision "if the protection of
legitimate expectations, legal certainty and legal security of
the person were not ensured, the confidence of the person in the
state and law would not be ensured" of Item 3.2 of Chapter II of
the reasoning part of the 3 December 2003 ruling of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2003, No. 115-5221) inter alia means
that principles of protection of legitimate expectations, legal
certainty, and legal security must be heeded also when there is
an extreme situation in the state (economic crisis etc.) due to
which the economic and financial situation in the state has
changed to the extent that inter alia the accumulation of the
funds necessary for the payment of remuneration for work of
officials and state servants of the institutions that are funded
from state and municipal budgets (other employees who are
remunerated for work from funds of state and municipal budgets)
or of the funds necessary for the payment of pensions is not
secured and due to this the legal regulation has to be corrected
by reducing the remunerations and pensions of the said persons.
6. To construe that the provision "principle of equality of
persons before the law would be violated if a certain group of
persons, which a legal norm is addressed to, would be treated in
a different manner comparing to other addressees of the same
norm, though there exist no differences of such nature and scope
between those two groups, which would objectively justify this
different treatment" of Item 5.2 of Chapter II of the reasoning
part of the 3 December 2003 ruling of the Constitutional Court of
the Republic of Lithuania (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
2003, No. 115-5221) and the provision "the constitutional
principle of equality of all persons before the law would be
violated when a certain group of people to which the legal norm
is ascribed, if compared to other addressees of the same legal
norm, were treated differently, even though there are not any
differences in their character and extent between these groups
that such an uneven treatment would be objectively justified
(Constitutional Court rulings of 20 November 1996, 30 December
2003, 13 December 2004 and 26 September 2007)" of Item 10 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the 24 December 2008 ruling
of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2008, No. 150-6106) inter
alia mean that, when there is a particularly difficult economic
and financial situation in the state and when due to this there
is a necessity to temporarily reduce the awarded and paid
pensions in order to secure vitally important interests of
society and the state and to protect other constitutional values:
- the legislator may correct the legal regulation of state
pensions, which in their nature and character are different from
old age pensions as well as from disability pensions, by reducing
these pensions to greater extent than old age and disability
pensions; while doing so, the proportions of the amounts of state
pensions established prior to the occurrence of the particularly
grave economic and financial situation in the state may not be
violated;
- it is not permitted to establish any such legal regulation
whereby the old age pension or disability pension awarded and
paid to the persons who have a certain occupation or conduct
certain business would be reduced, due to this, to a greater
extent if compared with the persons who do not have any
occupation and do not conduct any business.
7. the provision "the said legal regulation should create
preconditions to distribute (of course, by taking account inter
alia of the constitutional principle of solidarity, the
constitutional imperatives of social harmony and justice) the
corresponding burden that has fallen upon the state among members
of society, however, it must be distributed in such a manner that
the fulfilment of the duty to pay state social insurance
contributions would not become an overly heavy burden and the
person, due to the fact that he is fulfilling this duty, would
not become the one who needs social assistance himself" of Item 3
of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the 26 September 2007
ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2007, No. 102-4171) inter
alia means that, when there is an exceptionally grave economic
and financial situation (economic crisis etc.) in the state:
- the legal regulation must create preconditions for the
state to distribute the corresponding burden that has fallen upon
it among members of society in such a manner that the fulfilment
of the duty to pay state social insurance contributions would not
become an overly heavy burden to a person and this person, due to
the fact that he is fulfilling this duty, would not become the
one who needs social assistance himself;
- one has to follow the constitutional imperatives of
solidarity, social harmony and justice in the course of
redistributing the corresponding burden that has fallen upon the
state among members of society.
8. To construe that the provision "the social orientation of
the State of Lithuania which is consolidated in the Constitution
obliges the state to pay heed to the guarantees of pensions
(inter alia state pensions) and other social (material)
guarantees which, by the way, stem not only from Article 52 of
the Constitution, but also from other provisions of the
Constitution, or, for example, from Paragraph 2 of Article 30,
Articles 38, 39, 41, 48, Paragraph 1 of Article 51 and Article
146 thereof, the imperative of reality, thus, it obliges to
revise once established (and applied) social (material)
guarantees, in particular if they are linked with certain
periodic payments (such as pensions), to revise (increase their
sizes) in particular if economic or social situation undergoes
such changes so that the said established (and applied)
guarantees depreciate a lot, moreover, if they become nominal in
general (in this case, one must also have in mind the reservation
regarding the proportionality and temporary reduction of the
payments when it is necessary for the protection of other
constitutional values which is specified in this and other
Constitutional Court rulings)" of Item 6 of Chapter III of the
reasoning part of the 22 October 2007 ruling of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2007, No. 110-4511) inter alia means
that, under the Constitution, it is not allowed to establish any
such legal regulation whereby the pension becomes reduced to an
amount, where the person receiving the pension would not be
secured the minimal socially acceptable needs and the living
conditions compatible with human dignity; the pension which
secures only minimal socially acceptable needs and the living
conditions compatible with human dignity to the person who
receives the pension, may not be reduced at all.
9. To construe that the provision "when the economic and
financial situation of the country deteriorates considerably,
when due to particular circumstances (economic crisis, natural
disasters, etc.), an extremely difficult economic and financial
situation has occurred in the state" of Item 9.2 of Chapter IV of
the reasoning part of the 22 October 2007 ruling of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2007, No. 110-4511) inter alia means
that from the constitutional institute of a budget year, a duty
arises to the legislator, in the course of deliberating and
approving the State Budget for the next year, to reassess the
actual economic and financial situation in the state and to
decide whether the said situation is still a particularly grave
one, inter alia whether the collection of the State Budget
revenue is still disordered to the extent that due to this the
state is unable to perform the obligations undertaken by it and,
due to this, whether also for the next budget year one has to
establish the legal regulation whereby the reduced remunerations
and pensions will have to be paid.
10. To construe that the provision of Item 8.6 of Chapter II
of the reasoning part of the 24 December 2008 ruling of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2008, No. 150-6106) that justice "may
be implemented by ensuring certain equilibrium of interests, by
escaping fortuity and arbitrariness, instability of social life
and conflict of interests (Constitutional Court ruling of 3
December 2003)" inter alia means that when the economic and
financial situation of the country deteriorates considerably,
when due to particular circumstances (economic crisis, etc.), an
extremely difficult economic and financial situation has occurred
in the state, in the course of adoption of decisions to reduce
pensions one must follow the requirements (which stem from the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
justice) of avoiding fortuity and arbitrariness, instability of
social life and conflict of interests.
11. To construe that the provision "the legislator may
change the legal regulation which establishes the salaries to
various persons, and consolidate the legal regulation on the
salaries which would be less favourable to these persons, if it
is necessary in order to ensure the vital interests of society
and the state and to protect other constitutional values" of Item
9.2 of Chapter IV of the reasoning part of the 22 October 2007
ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2007, No. 110-4511) and the
provision "when the economic and financial situation of the
country deteriorates considerably, when due to particular
circumstances (economic crisis, natural disasters, etc.), an
extremely difficult economic and financial situation has occurred
in the state" of the same item inter alia mean that the reduction
of remunerations must be in line with the constitutional
principle of proportionality as one of elements of the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, which
implies that:
- the reduction of remunerations must be in line with the
legitimate objectives which are important to society, such
reduction must be necessary to reach the said objectives and may
not restrict the rights and freedoms of a person clearly more
than necessary in order to reach these objectives;
- when there is a particularly difficult economic and
financial situation in the state and when due to this there is a
necessity to temporarily reduce the remuneration for work of
officials and state servants of the institutions that are funded
from state and municipal budgets (other employees who are
remunerated for work from funds of state and municipal budgets)
in order to secure vitally important interests of society and the
state and to protect other constitutional values, the legislator
is under obligation to establish a uniform and non-discriminatory
scale of reduction of remuneration for work of officials and
state servants of the institutions that are funded from state and
municipal budgets (other employees who are remunerated for work
from funds of state and municipal budgets) whereby with respect
to all categories of officials and state servants of the
institutions that are funded from state and municipal budgets
(other employees who are remunerated for work from funds of state
and municipal budgets) the remunerations would be reduced in a
manner not violating the proportions of the amounts of the
remunerations established with regard to different categories of
officials and state servants of the institutions that are funded
from state and municipal budgets (other employees who are
remunerated for work from funds of state and municipal budgets)
prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic
and financial situation in the state;
- it is allowed to establish the limit upon the amount of
the remuneration of officials and state servants of the
institutions that are funded from state and municipal budgets
(other employees who are remunerated for work from funds of state
and municipal budgets) below which it would not be permitted to
reduce the established remuneration of officials and state
servants of the institutions that are funded from state and
municipal budgets (other employees who are remunerated for work
from funds of state and municipal budgets) even when there is a
particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the
state; while establishing this limit, one has to take account of
the circumstance that, under the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, it is not allowed to establish any such legal
regulation whereby the remuneration of officials and state
servants of the institutions that are funded from state and
municipal budgets (other employees who are remunerated for work
from funds of state and municipal budgets) becomes reduced to an
amount, where the minimal socially acceptable needs and the
living conditions compatible with human dignity would not be
secured.
12. To construe that the provision "<
> when due to an
extremely difficult economic and financial situation in the state
the legislator adopts a decision to reduce the remuneration for
work of officials and other state servants (employees) of the
institutions that are funded from state and municipal budgets, it
must be ascertained that the economic and financial situation of
the state is so difficult that it calls for a necessity to reduce
the remuneration for work of the said officials and state
servants (employees). <
> such reduction of the remuneration for
work must be temporary and grounded upon the circumstances of the
extremely difficult economic and financial situation in the
state" of Item 10 of Chapter IV of the 15 January 2009 decision
of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 6-170) inter alia
means that:
- only after there is an official statement that there is an
exceptionally grave economic and financial situation, which is
not short-termed, due to which the state is unable to perform the
obligations undertaken by it, the legislator may reduce,
temporarily, the remunerations of officials and state servants of
the institutions that are funded from state and municipal budgets
(other employees who are remunerated for work from funds of state
and municipal budgets);
- the establishment of only such legal regulation is allowed
whereby the reduced remunerations would be paid only temporarily,
i.e. as long as the corresponding extreme situation in the state
continues to exist, inter alia when due to the economic crisis it
is impossible to collect the budget revenues necessary for the
payment of remunerations;
- the constitutional institute of a budget year implies that
when there is an extreme situation in the state (economic crisis
etc.) due to which the economic and financial situation in the
state has changed to the extent that inter alia the accumulation
of the funds necessary for the payment of remuneration for work
of officials and state servants of the institutions that are
funded from state and municipal budgets (other employees who are
remunerated for work from funds of state and municipal budgets)
is not secured and due to this the legal regulation has to be
corrected by reducing the remunerations of the said persons, the
reduction of the remunerations is allowed for no longer than one
budget year; from the constitutional institute of a budget year,
a duty arises to the legislator, in the course of deliberating
and approving the State Budget for the next year, to reassess the
actual economic and financial situation in the state and to
decide whether the said situation is still a particularly grave
one, inter alia whether the collection of the State Budget
revenue is still disordered to the extent that due to this the
state is unable to perform the obligations undertaken by it and,
due to this, whether also for the next budget year one has to
establish the legal regulation whereby the reduced remunerations
will have to be paid;
- when the especially grave economic and financial situation
is over, the former amounts of the remunerations of officials of
institutions which are financed from the funds of state and
municipal budgets (and of other employees who are paid for their
work from the funds of state and municipal budgets) as well as
those of state servants, which were established in the state
prior to occurrence of the said situation, must be applied as
before;
- if, before the end of the economic crisis, there arises an
opportunity to accumulate (receive) the funds necessary to pay
the remunerations in the amounts that were before the reduction
of the remunerations, the legal regulation under which the
remunerations for work of officials of institutions which are
financed from the funds of state and municipal budgets (and of
other employees who are paid for their work from the funds of
state and municipal budgets) as well as those of state servants
were reduced must be abolished.
13. To construe that the provision "the collection of the
state budget revenue is disordered to the extent that due to this
the state is unable to perform the obligations undertaken by it,
and such situation in the state is not short-termed" of Item 10
of Chapter IV of the 15 January 2009 decision of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 6-170) inter alia means that
an especially grave economic and financial situation in the state
where the collection of the State Budget revenue is disordered to
the extent that due to this the state is unable to perform the
obligations undertaken by it, and when such a situation is not to
be regarded as a short-termed one, may last either for one budget
year, or for a longer period of time.
14. Not to construe whether the provision that when there is
an extreme situation in the state (economic crisis, natural
disaster etc.) "the legal regulation of pensionary relations may
be corrected also by reducing pensions to the extent that it is
necessary to ensure vitally important interests of society and
protect other constitutional values" of Item 1.9 of Chapter II of
the reasoning part of the 3 December 2003 ruling of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2003, No. 115-5221) means that the
reduction of pensions must be co-ordinated in proportion with
other measures (application of tax concessions, preservation of
the existing jobs and creation of new ones, attraction of
investments to jobs, non-reduction of the fund of remuneration
for work etc.) so that it would not violate vitally important
interests of society and would protect other constitutional
values.
15. Not to construe whether the provision "even in such
extraordinary cases it is not permitted that pensions be reduced
in violation of the balance between the interests of the person
and society; such reduction of pensions must be in line with the
constitutional principle of proportionality" of Item 1.9 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the 3 December 2003 ruling of
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2003, No. 115-5221) means that the
reduction of pensions must be proportionate to the amounts of
taxes and reduction of remuneration for work.
16. Not to construe whether the provision "principle of
equality of persons before the law would be violated if a certain
group of persons, which a legal norm is addressed to, would be
treated in a different manner comparing to other addressees of
the same norm, though there exist no differences of such nature
and scope between those two groups, which would objectively
justify this different treatment" of Item 5.2 of Chapter II of
the reasoning part of the 3 December 2003 ruling of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2003, No. 115-5221) means that when
there is an extreme situation in the state (economic crisis,
natural disaster, etc.) it is not allowed in the course of
reduction of remunerations to apply coefficients of different
amounts with regard to the same social groups.
17. Not to construe whether the following provisions of Item
4 of Chapter I of the reasoning part of the 16 January 2006
ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2006, No. 7-254), which are:
"The constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law
implies various requirements for the legislator and other law-
making entities: the law-making entities may pass legal acts only
without exceeding their powers; the requirements established in
legal acts must be based on the provisions of general type (legal
norms and principles) which can be applied in regard to all the
specified subjects of respective legal relations; the
differentiated legal regulation must be based only on objective
differences of the situation of subjects of public relations
regulated by respective legal acts; in order to ensure that the
subjects of legal relations are aware of requirements put forward
to them by law, the legal norms must be established in advance,
the legal acts must be published officially, they must be public
and accessible; the legal regulation established in laws and
other legal acts must be clear, easy to understand, consistent,
formulas in the legal acts must be explicit, consistency and
internal harmony of the legal system must be ensured, the legal
acts may not contain any provisions, which at the same time
regulate the same public relations in a different manner; in
order that subjects of legal relations could orient their
behaviour according to the requirements of law, the legal
regulation must be relatively stable; the legal acts may not
require the impossible (lex non cogit ad impossibilia); the power
of the legal acts is prospective, while retrospective validity of
the laws and other legal acts is not permitted (lex retro non
agit) unless the legal act mitigates the situation of the subject
of legal relations and does not injure other subjects of legal
relations by the same (lex benignior retro agit); violations of
law, for which liability is established in legal acts, must be
clearly defined; when setting legal restrictions and liability
for violations of law, one must pay heed to the requirement of
reasonableness and the principle of proportionality, according to
which the established legal measures are to be necessary in a
democratic society and suitable for achieving legitimate and
universally important objectives (there must be a balance between
the objectives and measures), they may not restrict the rights of
the person more than it is necessary in order to achieve the said
objectives, and if these legal measures are related to the
sanctions for the violation of law, in such case the
aforementioned sanctions must be proportionate to the committed
violation of law; when legally regulating public relations it is
compulsory to pay heed to the requirements of natural justice
comprising inter alia the necessity to ensure the equality of
persons before the law, the court and state institutions and
officials; when issuing legal acts, one must pay heed to
procedural law-making requirements, including those established
by the law-making entity itself; etc." mean that these
requirements must be heeded in all situations, or, quite to the
contrary, whether various requirements may be applied in a varied
manner, i.e. in one manner when there is a normal situation in
the state, and in a different manner when there is essential
deterioration in the economic and financial situation of the
state.
18. Not to construe whether the provision "when the economic
and financial situation of the country deteriorates considerably,
when due to particular circumstances (economic crisis, natural
disasters, etc.), an extremely difficult economic and financial
situation has occurred in the state" of Item 9.2 of Chapter IV of
the reasoning part of the 22 October 2007 ruling of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2007, No. 110-4511) means that the
occurrence of an especially grave economic and financial
situation in the state must be confirmed by a resolution of the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania.
19. Not to construe whether the provision that in case there
is lack of funds in the state due to special circumstances "<
>
the legislator may change the legal regulation which establishes
the salaries to various persons, and consolidate the legal
regulation on the salaries which would be less favourable to
these persons, if it is necessary in order to ensure the vital
interests of society and the state and to protect other
constitutional values" of Item 9.2 of Chapter IV of the reasoning
part of the 22 October 2007 ruling of the Constitutional Court of
the Republic of Lithuania (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
2007, No. 110-4511) means that the reduction of remunerations
must be co-ordinated with proportionate reduction of pensions and
other social allowances, since the amount of contributions to the
State Social Insurance Fund also depends upon the amount of
remuneration for work.
20. Not to construe as regards the following provisions of
Item 8 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the 22 November
2007 ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2007, No. 121-4965,
correction Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2007, No. 125):
1) whether the provision "any correction of the social
policy, the reorganisation of the system of social guarantees or
of individual social guarantees of the state should be
constitutionally grounded; if in the course of reorganisation of
the system of social guarantees or the structure of individual
social guarantees the extent of social guarantees is reduced, let
alone certain social guarantees disappear, a mechanism of just
compensation of incurred losses should be established to the
individuals to whom those social guarantees were reasonably
established" means that such mechanism of compensation for
incurred losses must be established under normal economic
conditions, and providing such correction of the state social
policy, the reorganisation of the system of social guarantees or
of the structure of individual social guarantees is performed
during a crisis, then it is not followed by a certain
compensation applied at that time or later (the compensation
which will be in effect after the crisis), also whether this
provision means that the constitutional doctrine how pensions
must be treated when the system of pensions is reorganised when
there is no crisis is not identical to the constitutional
doctrine establishing the behaviour of the legislator and other
subjects of law in reorganising the system of pensions when there
is an essential change in the economic and financial situation of
the state, when due to special circumstances (economic crisis,
natural disaster etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic
and financial situation in the state;
2) whether the provision "if those guarantees have to
compensate the losses, which an individual may incur due to his
own activities (inter alia due to his service to the state), a
period should also be provided so that it would be sufficient to
those individuals (being in respective work and executing
respective service according to the preceding legal regulation
entitling to respective social guarantees) to prepare for
respective changes" means that both under normal circumstances
and when there is an essential change in the economic and
financial situation of the state, when due to special
circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) there
occurs an especially grave economic and financial situation in
the state, the legislator must establish a sufficient time period
so that the persons might be able to prepare for the provided
changes;
3) whether the provision "the social orientation of the
state consolidated in the Constitution generally obligates the
state to respect the imperative of substantiality of guarantees
of social (material) character, thus obligates to respectively
revise (increase the sizes) of social (material) guarantees once
established (and applied), if economic, social situation changes
so that those established (and applied) guarantees depreciate
considerably, moreover, if they generally become nominal
(herewith making an exception regarding a proportional and
provisional reduction of benefits, whenever necessary for the
protection of other constitutional values)" means that even when
there is an extreme situation in the state (economic crisis,
natural disaster etc.) and due to this proportionately and
temporarily payments are reduced, one must pay attention to the
fact that such payments would not become only nominal.
21. Not to construe whether the provision of Item 8.6 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part of the 24 December 2008 ruling
of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2008, No. 150-6106) that
justice "may be implemented by ensuring certain equilibrium of
interests, by escaping fortuity and arbitrariness, instability of
social life and conflict of interests (Constitutional Court
ruling of 3 December 2003)" means that when there is an essential
change in the economic and financial situation of the state, when
due to special circumstances (economic crisis, natural disaster
etc.) there occurs an especially grave economic and financial
situation in the state, in the course of adoption of decisions to
reduce remunerations and payments one must avoid fortuity and
arbitrariness, instability of social life and conflict of
interests and whether the issues of increase or reduction of
burden of direct and indirect taxes for this purpose, those of
fairer distribution of the burden of taxes which falls upon
labour and capital, those of increase and reduction of
remunerations and pensions and other social allowances must be
solved in a complex manner, by taking account of the
constitutional requirements of justice, solidarity and
proportionality.
22. Not to construe whether the provision "the
constitutional principle of equality of all persons before the
law would be violated when a certain group of people to which the
legal norm is ascribed, if compared to other addressees of the
same legal norm, were treated differently, even though there are
not any differences in their character and extent between these
groups that such an uneven treatment would be objectively
justified (Constitutional Court rulings of 20 November 1996, 30
December 2003, 13 December 2004 and 26 September 2007)" of Item
10 of Chapter II of the 24 December 2008 ruling of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2008, No. 150-6106) means that it is
not allowed either under normal, or under essentially
deteriorated economic and financial conditions of the state to
apply coefficients of different sizes with regard to persons of
the same social group in the course of reduction of remunerations
and pensions.
This decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania 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
Ramutė Ruškytė
Egidijus Šileikis
Algirdas Taminskas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis