Lt

On accepting part of a petition and on returning part of the petition

 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 DECISION

ON THE PETITION OF THE VILNIUS REGIONAL COURT, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER PARAGRAPHS 2, 3 AND 4 OF ARTICLE 87 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON BANKS AND PARAGRAPH 3 OF ARTICLE 35 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON ENTERPRISE BANKRUPTCY ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 13 September 2012

Vilnius

 

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Egidijus Bieliūnas, Toma Birmontienė, Pranas Kuconis, Gediminas Mesonis, Ramutė Ruškytė, Egidijus Šileikis, Algirdas Taminskas, Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis, and Dainius Žalimas,

with the secretary—Daiva Pitrėnaitė,

in the procedural sitting of the Constitutional Court considered a petition (No. 1B-22/2012) of the Vilnius Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting “to investigate whether:

  1. Paragraph 2 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the RL Law on Banks, establishing that the claims of the state enterprise ‘Deposit and Investment Insurance’ on the expenses related to the payment of insurance payments to the depositors or investors of a bank referred in the Law on Insurance of Deposits and Liabilities to Investors shall be satisfied in the second order of priority, complies with the principle of protection of private property consolidated in Article 23 of the Constitution, the principle of equality of rights of all persons consolidated in Article 29 thereof and with Article 46 of the Constitution establishing the duty of the state to regulate the economic activity so that it serves the general welfare of the Nation, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law; with Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution which protects freedom of fair competition and prohibits monopolisation of production;
  2. Paragraph 3 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the RL Law on Banks, to the extent that it prescribes that the claims of the state related to the payment of taxes and making other payments to the budget, as well as to the granted loans received on behalf of the state and with the guarantee of the state, shall be satisfied in the third order of priority, complies with the principle of protection of private property consolidated in Article 23 of the Constitution, the principle of equality of rights of all persons consolidated in Article 29 thereof, with Article 46 of the Constitution establishing the duty of the state to regulate the economic activity so that it serves the general welfare of the Nation, and with the constitutional principles of proportionality and a state under the rule of law;
  3. Paragraph 4 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the RL Law on Banks, to the extent that it prescribes that the claims of depositors related to the deposit exceeding the sum of the deposit which is insured on a compulsory basis are satisfied only in the fourth order of priority, is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 46 of the Constitution which consolidates the duty of the state to support economic efforts that are useful to society and not to hinder the expression and development of the initiative or economic efforts of persons;
  4. Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 December 2011) of Article 35 of the RL Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy, to the extent that it prescribes that the claims of the state related to the payment of taxes and making other payments to the budget, as well as to the granted loans received on behalf of the state and with the guarantee of the state, shall be satisfied in the third order of priority, complies with the principle of protection of private property consolidated in Article 23 of the Constitution, the principle of equality of rights of all persons consolidated in Article 29 thereof, with Article 46 of the Constitution establishing the duty of the state to regulate the economic activity so that it serves the general welfare of the Nation, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.”

The Constitutional Court

has established:

The Vilnius Regional Court, the petitioner, requests to investigate whether:

– Paragraph 2 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 30 November 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks, insofar as it prescribes that the claims related to the payment of taxes and making other payments to the budget, as well as to the granted loans received on behalf of the state and with the guarantee of the state are satisfied in the third order of priority, is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of proportionality and a state under the rule of law;

– Paragraph 4 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the RL Law on Banks, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it prescribes that the claims of depositors related to the deposit exceeding the sum of the deposit which is insured on a compulsory basis, is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 46 of the Constitution;

– Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 December 2011) of Article 35 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it prescribes that the claims related to the payment of taxes and making other payments to the budget, as well as to the granted loans received on behalf of the state and with the guarantee of the state are satisfied in the third order of priority, is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

  1. In the operative part of its petition (No. 1B-22/2012), the Vilnius Regional Court, the petitioner, requests to investigate whether Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks are not in conflict with the Constitution.
  2. Article 87 (wording of 30 March 2004) of the Law on Banks prescribes:

“1. The claims of employees related to employment relationship, the claims to compensate for damage done due to mutilation or other bodily injury, contraction of an occupational disease or death as a result of an accident at work shall be satisfied in the first order of priority.

  1. The claims of the state enterprise Deposit and Investment Insurance on the expenses related to the payment of insurance payments to the depositors or investors of a bank referred in the Law on Insurance of Deposits and Liabilities to Investors shall be satisfied in the second order of priority.
  2. The claims related to the payment of taxes and making other payments to the budget, contributions of compulsory state social insurance and compulsory health insurance, as well as to the granted loans received on behalf of the state and with the guarantee of the state, shall be satisfied in the third order of priority.
  3. Other claims of a bank’s creditors, with the exception of the claims referred to in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of this Article, shall be satisfied in the fourth order of priority.
  4. The claims of creditors according to the transactions having all characteristics of a subordinated loan shall be satisfied in the fifth order of priority.
  5. The claims of a bank’s shareholders holding a qualifying holding in the bank’s authorised capital and/or voting rights, members of the bank’s supervisory board, members of the bank’s board and the heads of the administration shall be satisfied in the sixth order of priority.”
  6. It needs to be noted that Article 87 (wording of 30 March 2004) of the Law on Banks has been amended and supplemented.

3.1. On 4 November 2004, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending the Law on Bailiffs, the Law on the Notarial Profession, the Law on Banks and the Law on the Central Credit Union, Article 1 of the third section whereof amended Paragraph 3 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks—the word “compulsory” was crossed out and it was set forth as follows:

“The claims related to the payment of taxes and making other payments to the budget, contributions of state social insurance and compulsory health insurance, as well as to the granted loans received on behalf of the state and with the guarantee of the state, shall be satisfied in the third order of priority.”

Paragraph 3 (wording of 4 November 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks has not been subsequently amended and/or supplemented.

3.2. On 21 April 2011, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 48, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65, 67 and 87 of the Law on Banks, the Title of the Ninth Section Thereof and the Annex of the Law and on Supplementing the Law with Article 701, whose Article 18 amended Paragraphs 4 and 5 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks, supplemented this article with a new Paragraph 6 and, having prescribed that the former Paragraph 6 of this article was to be considered as Paragraph 7, amended Paragraph 7. By Paragraph 1 of Article 18 of the said law, whereby one inter alia amended Article 87 of the Law on Banks, instead of the word and the number “and 6” in Paragraph 4 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks one entered the numbers and the word “6 and 7” and set it forth as follows:

“Other claims of a bank’s creditors, with the exception of the claims referred to in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of this Article, shall be satisfied in the fourth order of priority.”

Paragraph 4 (wording of 21 April 2011) of Article 87 of the Law has not been subsequently amended or supplemented.

  1. The petitioner requests to investigate whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

In the operative part of its petition, the petitioner requests to investigate whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks is not in conflict inter alia with Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution. By its ruling, whereby it applied to the Constitutional Court, the petitioner refused (providing the reasons for acting so) the request from the creditors “Astrave Company Ltd”, “Seatranscom Limited” and others of the bankrupting AB bank “Snoras” to apply to the Constitutional Court regarding the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks with inter alia Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution. Thus, the petitioner did not doubt whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks was in conflict with inter alia Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution, thus, the indication of this provision of the Constitution in the operative part of the petition is to be treated as a technical mistake.

Therefore, the petition of the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is to be considered as requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

This petition of the petitioner is substantiated by the corresponding legal reasoning and it complies with other requirements established in the Law on the Constitutional Court, thus, the petition is, to this extent, to be accepted for consideration at the Constitutional Court.

  1. The Vilnius Regional Court, the petitioner, requests to investigate whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 30 November 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks, insofar as it prescribes that the claims related to the payment of taxes and making other payments to the budget, as well as to the granted loans received on behalf of the state and with the guarantee of the state are satisfied in the third order of priority, is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of proportionality and a state under the rule of law.

Even though in its operative part the petitioner requests to investigate the compliance of Paragraph 3 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks, to the corresponding extent, with the Constitution, it is clear from the arguments set forth in its petition and a duplicate of the said Law on Amending the Law on Bailiffs, the Law on the Notarial Profession, the Law on Banks and the Law on the Central Credit Union attached to the petition that it actually impugns the compliance of Paragraph 3 (wording of 4 November 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks with the Constitution.

The petitioner requests to investigate whether Paragraph 3 of Article 87 of the Law on Banks, insofar as it prescribes that the claims related to the payment of taxes and making other payments to the budget, as well as to the granted loans received on behalf of the state and with the guarantee of the state, are satisfied in the third order of priority, is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of proportionality and a state under the rule of law. Thus, the petitioner impugns not all Paragraph 3 (wording of 4 November 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks, but only the provision thereof “the claims related to the payment of taxes and making other payments to the budget <…>, as well as to the granted loans received on behalf of the state and with the guarantee of the state, shall be satisfied in the third order of priority” with the specified provisions of the Constitution.

In addition, the Constitutional Court has held more than once that the constitutional principle of proportionality is one of the elements of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (Constitutional Court rulings of 29 December 2004, 29 September 2005, 10 April 2009 and 6 February 2012).

Taking account of the arguments set forth, the petition of the petitioner requesting to investigate, whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks, insofar as it prescribes that the claims related to the payment of taxes and making other payments to the budget, as well as to the granted loans received on behalf of the state and with the guarantee of the state are satisfied in the third order of priority, is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of proportionality and a state under the rule of law is to be considered as the petition requesting to investigate whether the provision “the claims related to the payment of taxes and making other payments to the budget <…>, as well as to the granted loans received on behalf of the state and with the guarantee of the state, shall be satisfied in the third order of priority” of Paragraph 3 (wording of 4 November 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

This petition of the petitioner is substantiated by the corresponding legal reasoning and it complies with other requirements established in the Law on the Constitutional Court, thus, the petition is, to this extent, to be accepted for consideration at the Constitutional Court.

  1. The Vilnius Regional Court, the petitioner, requests to investigate whether Paragraph 4 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it prescribes that the claims of depositors related to the deposit exceeding the sum of the deposit which is insured on a compulsory basis are satisfied in the fourth order of priority, is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 46 of the Constitution.

Under Article 67 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Constitutional Court, a court ruling whereby one applies to the Constitutional Court must specify the legal arguments presenting the opinion of the court on the conflict of a law or other legal act with the Constitution (Item 5 of Paragraph 2), a formulated petition of the court to the Constitutional Court (Item 6 of Paragraph 2), and a duplicate of the whole text of the impugned legal act must be attached to the court ruling (Item 2 of Paragraph 3).

The Constitutional Court has held more than once that the courts that apply to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to investigate whether a law or other legal act (part thereof) is not in conflict with the Constitution, when presenting their arguments as to the opinion expressed in the petition regarding the conflict of the law or other legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution, may not confine themselves to general reasoning or statements that the law or other legal act (part thereof), in their opinion, is in conflict with the Constitution, but must clearly indicate which impugned articles (paragraphs, items thereof) of legal acts, and to what extent, in their opinion, are in conflict with the Constitution, and to substantiate their position on the compliance of every impugned provision of the legal act (part thereof) by clearly formulated legal arguments. The Constitutional Court has also held more than once that, under the Law on the Constitutional Court, especially in the cases when the impugned legal acts (parts thereof) were amended and/or supplemented, when applying to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to investigate the compliance of the legal act (part thereof) with the legal act of higher power, inter alia the Constitution, courts must precisely specify in their ruling the wording of the legal act (part thereof) whose compliance with the legal act of higher power is impugned.

The Constitutional Court has also held more than once that a duplicate of the whole text of the impugned legal act (part thereof) in namely that wording—the text of the legal act (part thereof) which is published in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”—must be attached to the petition requesting to investigate whether the impugned legal act (part thereof) is not in conflict with the legal act of higher power, inter alia the Constitution.

It needs to be noted that the petitioner did not provide any arguments substantiating its doubt regarding the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 87 of the Law on Banks with Paragraph 2 of Article 46 of the Constitution.

It has been mentioned that Paragraph 4 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks which is specified by the petitioner in the operative part of its petition, has been amended and set forth in the wording of 21 April 2011, which is relevant in the civil case considered by the petitioner.

The petitioner did not attach the duplicate of Paragraph 4 (wording of 21 April 2011) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks to the petition.

Taking account of the arguments set forth, it needs to be held that the petition of the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 4 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Law on Banks, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it prescribes that the claims of depositors related to the deposit exceeding the sum of the deposit which is insured on a compulsory basis are satisfied only in the fourth order of priority, is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 46 of the Constitution, does not meet the requirements of Items 5 and 6 of Paragraph 2 and Item 2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court.

If a petition (part thereof) fails to comply with the requirements set forth in Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, such petition shall be returned to the petitioner. The return of a petition shall not take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court according to the common procedure after removal of the deficiencies thereof.

  1. The Vilnius Regional Court, the petitioner, in the operative part of its petition (No. 1B-22/2012) requests to investigate, whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 December 2011) of Article 35 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it prescribes that the claims related to the payment of taxes and making other payments to the budget, as well as to the granted loans received on behalf of the state and with the guarantee of the state are satisfied in the third order of priority, is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29 and Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

On 20 March 2001, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy which has been amended and/or supplemented more than once. One has more than once amended or supplemented also Article 35 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy, inter alia Paragraph 3 thereof which has been amended by Article 5 of the second section of the said Law on Amending the Law on Bailiffs, the Law on the Notarial Profession, the Law on Banks and the Law on the Central Credit Union which was adopted on 4 November 2004 and by Paragraph 1 of Article 21 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 131, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 and 37 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy and on Supplementing the Law with an Annex adopted on 22 May 2008, which is set forth as follows:

“3. The claims related to the payment of taxes and making other contributions to the budget, contributions of compulsory state social insurance and compulsory health insurance, the claims related to the loans granted from the funds granted on behalf of the state and loans received with the guarantee of the state or a guarantee institution the implementation of obligations of which is guaranteed by the state, and those related to the assistance granted from the funds of the European Union shall be satisfied in the second order of priority.”

On 22 December 2011, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 21, 23, 26, 33, 35, 36 and 37 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy and Supplementing the Law with Article 111 and the Third1 Section, Article 17 whereof supplemented Article 35 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy with Paragraph 8. On 19 June 2012, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Articles 11, 131 and 35 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy, Article 3 whereof amended Paragraph 5 of Article 35 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy. Thus, Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 May 2008) of Article 35 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy was not amended or supplemented either by the law adopted on 22 December 2011 (the wording of which is incorrectly specified by the petitioner in connection with Paragraph 3 of Article 35 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy), or by the subsequently adopted laws.

Even though in the operative part of its petition the petitioner requests to investigate the compliance of Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 December 2011) of Article 35 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy, to the corresponding extent, with the Constitution, it is clear from the arguments set forth in its petition and from the Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 131, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 and 37 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy and on Supplementing the Law with an Annex adopted on 22 May 2008 which is attached to the petition that the petitioner actually impugns the compliance of Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 May 2008) of Article 35 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy with the Constitution.

The petitioner requests to investigate whether Paragraph 3 of Article 35 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it prescribes that the claims related to the payment of taxes and making other payments to the budget, as well as to the granted loans received on behalf of the state and with the guarantee of the state are satisfied in the third order of priority, is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29 and Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. It needs to be noted that while formulating such extent of the petition, the petitioner, instead of the second order of priority consolidated in Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 May 2008) of Article 35 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy in which inter alia the claims related to the payment of taxes and making other contributions to the budget, contributions of compulsory state social insurance and compulsory health insurance and the claims related to the loans granted from the funds granted on behalf of the state and loans received with the guarantee of the state or a guarantee institution the implementation of obligations of which is guaranteed by the state are satisfied, incorrectly specified the third order of priority. Thus, the petitioner impugns not all Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 May 2008) of Article 35 of the Law on Enterprise bankruptcy with the specified provisions of the Constitution, but only the provision thereof “the claims related to the payment of taxes and making other contributions to the budget <…>, the claims related to the loans granted from the funds granted on behalf of the state and loans received with the guarantee of the state or a guarantee institution the implementation of obligations of which is guaranteed by the state, <…> shall be satisfied in the second order of priority”.

Taking account of the arguments set forth, the petition of the petitioner requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 December 2011) of Article 35 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it prescribes that the claims related to the payment of taxes and making other payments to the budget, as well as to the granted loans received on behalf of the state and with the guarantee of the state are satisfied in the third order of priority, is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29 and Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is to be treated as the petition requesting to investigate, whether the provision “the claims related to the payment of taxes and making other contributions to the budget <…>, the claims related to the loans granted from the funds granted on behalf of the state and loans received with the guarantee of the state or a guarantee institution the implementation of obligations of which is guaranteed by the state, <…> shall be satisfied in the second order of priority” of Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 May 2008) of Article 35 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

This petition of the petitioner is substantiated by the corresponding legal reasoning and it complies with other requirements established in the Law on the Constitutional Court, thus, the petition is, to this extent, to be accepted for consideration at the Constitutional Court.

Conforming to Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of Article 25 and Articles 28, 67, and 70 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 accept the petition of the Vilnius Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether:

– Paragraph 2 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Banks is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the provision “The claims related to the payment of taxes and making other payments to the budget <...> as well as to the granted loans received on behalf of the state and with the guarantee of the state shall be satisfied in the third order of priority” of Paragraph 3 (wording of 4 November 2004) of Article 87 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Banks is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the provision “The claims related to the payment of taxes and making other contributions to the budget <…>, the claims related to the loans granted from the funds granted on behalf of the state and loans received with the guarantee of the state or a guarantee institution the implementation of obligations of which is guaranteed by the state, <…> shall be satisfied in the second order of priority” of Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 May 2008) of Article 35 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy is not in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

  1. To return to the Vilnius Regional Court, the petitioner, the petition requesting to investigate, whether Paragraph 4 (wording of 30 March 2004) of Article 87 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Banks, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it prescribes that the claims of depositors related to the deposit exceeding the sum of the deposit which is insured on a compulsory basis are satisfied only in the fourth order of priority, is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

This decision of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.

The decision is promulgated in the name of the Republic of Lithuania.

Justices of the Constitutional Court:                                    Egidijus Bieliūnas

                                                                                                        Toma Birmontienė

                                                                                                        Pranas Kuconis

                                                                                                        Gediminas Mesonis

                                                                                                        Ramutė Ruškytė

                                                                                                        Egidijus Šileikis

                                                                                                        Algirdas Taminskas

                                                                                                        Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis

                                                                                                        Dainius Žalimas