Lt

On accepting a petition of the petitioner

 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 DECISION

ON THE PETITION OF A GROUP OF MEMBERS OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE LAWS WHEREBY THE 2012 STATE BUDGET, THE 2012 MUNICIPAL BUDGETS AND THE 2012 BUDGET OF STATE SOCIAL INSURANCE FUND WERE APPROVED, AS WELL AS THE LAWS AND OTHER LEGAL ACTS RELATED TO THEM, ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 25 April 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, and Dainius Žalimas,

with the secretary—Daiva Pitrėnaitė,

in a procedural sitting of the Constitutional Court considered a petition (No. 1B-3/2012) of a group of Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to investigate “whether:

  1. The Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2012 State Budget and the Municipal Budgets (Number: XI-1823; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 31/12/2011, No. 163-7741) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which is enshrined in the Constitution, and with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution;
  2. The Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Indicators of the 2012 Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund (Number: XI-1826; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 29/12/2011, No. 161-7620) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which is enshrined in the Constitution, and with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution;
  3. The Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on the Planned Indicators of the National Budget of 2012, 2013 and 2014 (Number: XI-1824; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 24/12/2011, No. 158-7468) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which is enshrined in the Constitution, and with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution;
  4. The Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2012 State Budget and the Municipal Budgets (Number: XI-1823; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 31/12/2011, No. 163-7741), to the extent that it approves the predicted income of the 2012 national budget (with the financial support of the European Union and other international financial support) and predicts the subsidies of the 2012 national budget (with the financial support of the European Union and other financial support and including appropriations and compensations for municipal budgets), calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, in view of the content of the norms, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which is enshrined in the Constitution, and with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution;
  5. The Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Indicators of the 2012 Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund (Number: XI-1826; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 29/12/2011, No. 161-7620), to the extent that it approves the predicted income and expenditure of the 2012 Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund, calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, in view of the content of the norms is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which is enshrined in the Constitution, and with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Constitution;
  6. The Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on the Planned Indicators of the National Budget of 2012, 2013 and 2014 (Number: XI-1824; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 24/12/2011, No. 158-7468), in view of the procedure of its adoption and content of the norms (to the extent that the income and expenditure are calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts), is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which is enshrined in the Constitution, and with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution;
  7. The Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on Submission of the Republic of Lithuania Draft Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2012 State Budget and the Municipal Budgets and the Draft Legal Acts Linked to It to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (Number: 1182; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 18/10/2011, No. 125-5951) and the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on Submission of the Republic of Lithuania Improved Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2012 State Budget and the Municipal Budgets and the Draft Legal Acts Linked to It to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (Number: 1410; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 8/12/2011, No. 150-7066), to the extent that the income and expenditure are calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, are not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which is enshrined in the Constitution, and with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5 and Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution;
  8. Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Supplementing Article 3 of the Law on the Treasury (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 8/12/2011, No. 150-7031; Number: XI-1715) is not in conflict with the Constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
  9. The provisions of Article 5 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Articles 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 of the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises (Number: XI-1752; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 8/2/2012, No. 150-7051; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 14/2/2012, No. 20 correction) which possibly create a legal gap are not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
  10. The provisions of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Articles 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 of the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises (Number: XI-1752; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 8/2/2012, No. 150-7051; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 14/2/2012, No. 20 correction) are not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
  11. The Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Articles 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 of the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises (Number: XI-1752; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 8/2/2012, No. 150-7051; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 14/2/2012, No. 20 correction) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution;
  12. The Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on Submission of the Republic of Lithuania Draft Law on the Approval of the Indicators of the 2012 Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (Number: 1190; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 18/10/2011, No. 125-5959), in view of the content of the norms, to the extent that the income and expenditure are calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which is enshrined in the Constitution, and with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5 and Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution;
  13. The Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on Submission of the Republic of Lithuania Improved Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2012 State Budget and the Municipal Budgets and the Draft Legal Acts Linked to It to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (Number: 1410; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 8/12/2011, No. 150-7066) in view of the procedure of its adoption and entry into force is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 177 of the Statute of the Seimas and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law which is enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution;
  14. The Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and the Titles of the Third and Sixth Sections of the Law on Payments for Children and Recognising Article 21 Thereof as No Longer Valid (Number: XI-1756; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 20/12/2011, No. 155-7350) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law which is enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, and with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution;
  15. Articles 4 and 6 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and Amending the Title of the Third Section of the Law on Payments for Children (Number: XI-1756; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 20/12/2011, No. 155-7350) in view of their content are not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution;
  16. The Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Article 13 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (Number: XI-1804; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 28/12/2011, No. 160-7570) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law which is enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, and with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of legitimate expectations;
  17. The Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Article 4 of the Law on State Social Relief Payments (Number: XI-1768; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 20/12/2011, No. 155-7351) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law which is enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, and with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of legitimate expectations, whereas whether Article 1 of the said law in view of its content is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and the constitutional principle of legitimate expectations;
  18. The Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Article 6 of the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance (Number: XI-1803; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 28/12/2011, No. 160-7569) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law which is enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, and with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of legitimate expectations;
  19. The Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 5(1), 14, 19, 31, 32, 36, 43, 47, 49, 53, 57, 64, 66, 71, 71(1), 78, 79, 80, 83 and 92 of the Law on Value Added Tax, Supplementing Annex 2 Thereof, Recognising Article 82 Thereof as No Longer Valid and Supplementing This Law with Articles 63(1), 78(1) and 89(1) (Number: XI-1817; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 29/12/2011, No. 161-7616) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law which is enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, and with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of legitimate expectations;
  20. The Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Article 4 of the Law on Reform of the Pension System (Number: XI-1822; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 28/12/2011, No. 160-7574) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law which is enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, and with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of legitimate expectations;
  21. The Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Article 15 of the Provisional Law on Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments (Number: XI-1821; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 28/12/2011, No. 160-7573) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law which is enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, and with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of legitimate expectations;
  22. Articles 1 and 3 and Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Articles 10, 16 and 21 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (Number: XI-1650; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 26/11/2011, No. 143-6706) are not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and the constitutional principle of legitimate expectations;
  23. Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Article 7 of the Law on the Amount, Sources, Terms and Procedure of Payment of Compensation for the Real Property Bought Out by the State, and on the Guarantees and Preferences Which are Provided For in the Law on the Restoration of Citizens’ Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property (Number: XI-1652; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 26/11/2011, No. 143-6706) is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.”

The Constitutional Court

has established:

In the resolution part of its petition (No. 1B-3/2012) the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requests to investigate the compliance of the laws, whereby one approved the 2012 state budget and municipal budgets and the 2012 budget of the State Social Insurance Fund, with the Constitution, as well as the compliance of laws and other legal acts related to them with the Constitution, and of one of them—also with the Statute of the Seimas, namely whether:

– the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2012 State Budget and the Municipal Budgets (hereinafter referred to as the Law on the State Budget) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, whereas, insofar as it approves the predicted income of the 2012 national budget (with the financial support of the European Union and other international financial support) and the subsidies thereof (with the financial support of the European Union and other financial support and including appropriations and compensations for municipal budgets), calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, in view of the content of the norms, is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the Law on the Approval of the Indicators of the 2012 Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund (hereinafter referred to as the Law on the Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the principle of a state under the rule of law, whereas insofar as it approves the predicted income and expenditure of the 2012 Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, in view of the content of the norms, is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the Seimas Resolution “On the Planned Indicators of the National Budget of 2012, 2013 and 2014” (hereinafter referred to as the Seimas Resolution), in view of the procedure of its adoption and the content of the norms, insofar as the income and expenditure of the budget are calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Government Resolution No. 1182 “On Submission of the Republic of Lithuania Draft Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2012 State Budget and the Municipal Budgets and the Draft Legal Acts Linked to It to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania” (hereinafter also referred to as Government resolution No. 1182 of 14 October 2011), insofar as the income and expenditure of the budget are calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5 and Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Government Resolution No. 1410 “On Submission of the Republic of Lithuania Improved Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2012 State Budget and the Municipal Budgets and the Draft Legal Acts Linked to It to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania” (hereinafter referred to as Government resolution No. 1410 of 6 December 2011), insofar as the income and expenditure of the budget are calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5 and Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, whereas in view of the procedure of its adoption and entry into force—with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and Paragraph 1 of Article 177 of the Statute of the Seimas;

– Government Resolution No. 1190 “On Submission of the Republic of Lithuania Draft Law on the Approval of the Indicators of the 2012 Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania” (hereinafter also referred to as Government resolution No. 1182 of 14 October 2011), insofar as the income and expenditure of the budget are calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5 and Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Article 2 of the Law on Supplementing Article 3 of the Law on the Treasury is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the Law on Amending Articles 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 of the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises (hereinafter also referred to as the Law on Amending the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution, whereas Articles 5 and 7 of this law in view of the content of the norms—with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and the Titles of the Third and Sixth Sections of the Law on Payments for Children and Recognising Article 21 Thereof as No Longer Valid (hereinafter referred to as the Law on Amending the Law on Payments for Children) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, whereas Articles 4 and 6 of this law in view of the content of the norms—with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the Law on Amending Article 13 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– the Law on Amending Article 4 of the Law on State Social Relief Payments in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations, whereas Article 1 of this law in view of the content of the norms—with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– the Law on Amending Article 6 of the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– the Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 51, 14, 19, 31, 32, 36, 43, 47, 49, 53, 57, 64, 66, 71, 711, 78, 79, 80, 83 and 92 of the Law on Value Added Tax, Supplementing Annex 2 Thereof, Recognising Article 82 Thereof as No Longer Valid and Supplementing This Law with Articles 631, 781 and 891 (hereinafter also referred to as the Law on Amending the Law on Value Added Tax) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– the Law on Amending Article 4 of the Law on Reform of the Pension System in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– the Law on Amending Article 15 of the Provisional Law on Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– Articles 1 and 3 and Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Amending Articles 10, 16 and 21 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (hereinafter also referred to as the Law on Amending the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property) are not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– Article 1 of the Law on Amending Article 7 of the Law on the Amount, Sources, Terms and Procedure of Payment of Compensation for the Real Property Bought Out by the State, and on the Guarantees and Preferences Which are Provided For in the Law on the Restoration of Citizens’ Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property (hereinafter also referred to as the Law on Amending the Law on Compensation for the Real Property Bought Out by the State) is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

 

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

  1. Paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the Law on the Constitutional Court provides that the grounds for the consideration of a case concerning the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution in the Constitutional Court shall be a legally justified doubt that the entire legal act or part thereof is in conflict with the Constitution according to: 1) the content of norms; 2) the extent of regulation; 3) form; 4) the procedure of adoption, signing, publication, and entry into effect, which is established in the Constitution.
  2. Under Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, a petition for the investigation of the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution, whereby one applies to the Constitutional Court, must contain the position of the petitioner concerning the compliance of an appropriate act with the Constitution and legal support of such position containing reference to laws.

While construing this provision of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court has held more than once that the position of the petitioner concerning the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution in view of the content of norms and/or the extent of regulation must be indicated clearly and unambiguously, the petition must contain the arguments and reasoning grounding the doubt of the petitioner that the legal act (part thereof) is in conflict with the Constitution. Thus, the petition requesting to investigate the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution in view of the content of norms and/or the extent of regulation must clearly indicate concrete articles (parts thereof), items of the legal act the compliance of which with the Constitution is doubtful from the petitioner’s viewpoint, also concrete provisions—norms and/or principles—of the Constitution, with which, in the opinion of the petitioner, the concretely indicated articles or items of the impugned legal act are in conflict. The petition requesting to investigate the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution in view of the content of norms and/or the extent of regulation must also clearly set forth the legal reasoning grounding the doubt of the petitioner as regards every concretely indicated article (part thereof) or item of the impugned legal act (part thereof), the compliance of which with the concretely indicated provisions of the Constitution is doubtful to the petitioner. Otherwise, the request to investigate the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution in view of the content of norms and/or the extent of regulation must be considered to be not in line with the requirements of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court (Constitutional Court decision of 16 April 2004, ruling of 12 December 2005, decision of 14 March 2006 and decisions of 29 March 2006, 19 March 2010 and 12 March 2012).

  1. It needs to be noted that the said requirements as to the position of the petitioner concerning the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution in view of the content of norms and/or the extent of regulation as well as the legal support of such a position are mutatis mutandis also applicable in those cases where the petitioner is impugning the laws in view of the procedure of their adoption, publication and entry into force as established in the Constitution (Constitutional Court decision of 5 March 2012).
  2. It also needs to be noted that if, in the petition requesting to investigate the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution in view of the content of norms and/or the extent of regulation one does not indicate any concrete articles (parts thereof), items of the legal act, the compliance of which with the Constitution is doubtful to the petitioner, nor any concrete provisions—norms and/or principles—of the Constitution with which, in the opinion of the petitioner, the concretely indicated articles (parts thereof) or items of the impugned legal act are in conflict in view of the content of norms and/or the extent of regulation, nor the legal reasoning grounding the doubt of the petitioner concerning each concretely indicated article (part thereof) or item of the impugned legal act (part thereof), the compliance of which with the concretely indicated provisions of the Constitution in view of the content of norms and/or the extent of regulation is doubtful to the petitioner, and in case such a petition was accepted at the Constitutional Court and a case was commenced subsequent to it, one would also restrict the rights of the party concerned, the state institution that has passed the impugned legal act, since it would be more difficult for the party concerned to present explanations concerning the arguments of the petitioner and to prepare for the judicial consideration (Constitutional Court decisions of 16 April 2004 and 19 March 2010).

II

  1. The group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requests to investigate inter alia whether the laws, specified in its petition, whereby one approved the 2012 state budget and municipal budgets and the 2012 Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund and the Seimas Resolution “On the Planned Indicators of the National Budget of 2012, 2013 and 2014” in view of the procedure of their adoption and content of the norms are not in conflict with the Constitution (Items 1–6 of the resolution part of the petition), whether Government resolution No. 1182 of 14 October 2011, Government resolution No. 1190 of 14 October 2011 and Government resolution No. 1410 of 6 December 2011, insofar as the income and expenditure of the corresponding budgets have been calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, are not in conflict with the Constitution (Items 7 and 12 of the resolution part of the petition), whereas whether Government resolution No. 1410 of 6 December 2011 in view of the procedure of its adoption and entry into force is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and Paragraph 1 of Article 177 of the Statute of the Seimas (Item 13 of the resolution part of the petition).

1.1. As it has been mentioned, the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, doubts inter alia whether Government resolution No. 1182 of 14 October 2011, Government resolution No. 1190 of 14 October 2011 and Government resolution No. 1410 of 6 December 2011, in view of the content of their norms, insofar as the income and expenditure of the corresponding budgets have been calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, are in compliance with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5 and Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

1.1.1. In the opinion of the petitioner, the Government, while submitting the Seimas with the Draft Law on the State Budget, the Improved Draft Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2012 State Budget and the Municipal Budgets and the Draft Legal Acts Linked to It, the Draft Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2012 Budget of the Compulsory Health Insurance Fund, the Draft Law on the Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund and the draft resolution of the Seimas, was following the provisions of not the then effective laws, but the laws which were being submitted then and which were likely to become effective only in the future.

1.1.2. In its petition the petitioner refers to Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution in which it is inter alia established that expenditure established by laws may not be reduced as long as the said laws are not altered. In the opinion of the petitioner, this means that if certain laws provide for certain expenditures, then the Government has to follow these laws in the preparation of the draft state budget and implement them. According to the Constitution, the Government has a duty to submit to the Seimas such a draft state budget which would be consistent with the provisions (of these laws) pertaining to public expenditures.

1.1.3. However, the petitioner in no way substantiates its statement whereby its position regarding the incompliance of the aforementioned Government resolutions with the Constitution is grounded, namely that the Government followed not the provisions of the then effective laws, but the provisions of the laws (likely to become effective in the future) the drafts of which were in the course of preparation. In the petition of the petitioner requesting to investigate the compliance of the Government resolutions with the Constitution, one does not specify and explain which laws had to be followed by the Government while it was preparing the draft state budget, one does not indicate the draft laws that the Government actually followed, which concrete expenditures specified in the draft budgets submitted by the Government had been planned following not the legal acts which had come into force, but the draft laws, and what such expenditures were supposed to be.

Thus, the petitioner, doubting the compliance of the aforesaid Government resolutions with the Constitution, not only essentially does not provide any arguments to substantiate its position, but also does not specify any concrete provisions of these resolutions which have raised doubts to the petitioner.

1.1.4. Alongside, it needs to be noted that even though, as mentioned, the petitioner requests to investigate inter alia the compliance of Government resolution No. 1410 of 6 December 2011, in view of the procedure of its adoption and entry into force, with the Constitution and the Statute of the Seimas, in this aspect it does not provide any arguments substantiating its doubt at all.

1.1.5. Thus, the petition of the petitioner requesting to investigate the compliance of Government resolution No. 1182 of 14 October 2011, Government resolution No. 1190 of 14 October 2011 and Government resolution No. 1410 of 6 December 2011 in view of the content of their norms, insofar as the income and expenditure of the corresponding budgets have been calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, with the Constitution, as well as the petition requesting to investigate the compliance of Government resolution No. 1410 of 6 December 2011 in view of the procedure of its adoption and entry into force with the Constitution and the Statute of the Seimas, do not comply with the requirements of Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, such a petition is to be returned to the petitioner.

1.2. It has been mentioned that the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, also doubts whether the Law on the State Budget, the Law on the Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund and the Seimas Resolution “On the Planned Indicators of the National Budget of 2012, 2013 and 2014” in view of the procedure of its adoption and the content of the norms are not in conflict with the Constitution.

1.2.1. Even though the aforementioned laws and the Seimas resolution are different legal acts, the petitioner substantiates its doubts regarding their compliance with the Constitution by the analogous statements, i.e. by the fact that the income and expenditure of the 2012 budgets of the state, municipalities and the State Social Insurance Fund were approved in the Seimas following not the then effective laws, but the laws which were likely to become effective only in the future, whose drafts were in the course of preparation.

The petitioner states that the Seimas, while approving the budgets of 2012, firstly considered and adopted the laws on the state budget, on the budgets of the State Social Insurance Fund and the Compulsory Health Insurance Fund, and only after that considered the draft laws submitted by the Government. The latter laws influenced the income and subsidies of these budgets and the state debt and they were adopted in contradiction to what is required under Article 12 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Budgeting.

The petitioner notes that “the ground for formation and implementation of the state budget is the Constitution and laws, as well as the Statute of the Seimas, which provide for the procedure and terms of formation and approval of the budget. Such a procedure and terms are intended to ensure the approval of the budget in time and its quality”, it points out that “the precise observance of the specified procedure guarantees cooperation between the legislative and executive powers and ensures the principle of separation of powers”, while “the duty of the Seimas to comply with the rules of adoption of laws which are defined in the Statute of the Seimas not only may, but also must be assessed as a constitutional duty enshrined in Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution.”

1.2.2. However, the petitioner in no way substantiates its doubts regarding the compliance of the aforementioned impugned laws and resolution of the Seimas with the Constitution, does not specify or explain which laws had to be followed when approving the state budget and does not indicate whether they actually came into force later than the laws approving corresponding budgets, does not specify which concrete provisions (in which the income and expenditure of a corresponding budget are enshrined) of the laws regulating the relations of the budgets are substantiated by the legal acts (draft laws) which had not come into force and what they should be like, as well as of which laws exactly and what kind of amendments had to be made before the corresponding budget was approved.

It needs to be noted that even though the petitioner impugns the compliance of the laws and the Statute of the Seimas (which are mentioned in its petition), in view of the procedure of their adoption and the content of the norms, with the Constitution, it is not clear from the entirety of the petition namely by which statements thereof it substantiates its doubts regarding the compliance with the Constitution in view of the procedure of their adoption and by which ones—in view of the content of the norms. Thus, the petitioner, while doubting the compliance of the aforesaid laws and the resolution of the Seimas with the Constitution, does not specify any concrete provisions of the legal acts which raise doubts regarding their compliance with the Constitution, by which it would substantiate its position.

1.2.3. In addition, it its petition, the petitioner states that “while applying the systemic and logical methods of construction of law, a conclusion is to be drawn that an analogous procedure must be applied for the procedures of adoption of not only the state budget, but also the budget of the State Social Insurance Fund and the Compulsory Health Insurance Fund”, however, it in no way substantiates why the procedure of adoption of other budgets (of the State Social Insurance Fund and Compulsory Health Insurance Fund), under the Constitution, should be the same as the procedure of adoption of the State Budget.

1.2.4. Thus, the petition of the petitioner requesting to investigate whether the Law on the State Budget, the Law on the Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund and the Seimas Resolution “On the Planned Indicators of the National Budget of 2012, 2013 and 2014”, in view of the procedure of their adoption and the content of the norms, are not in conflict with the Constitution does not comply with the requirements of Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, such a petition is to be returned to the petitioner.

  1. The group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requests to investigate the compliance of also other legal acts which are related to the budgets of the state and municipalities and the State Social Insurance Fund, namely the Law on Amending the Law on Payments for Children (Item 14 of the resolution part of the petition), the Law on Amending Article 13 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (Item 16 of the resolution part of the petition), the Law on Amending Article 4 of the Law on State Social Relief Payments (Item 17 of the resolution part of the petition), the Law on Amending Article 6 of the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance (Item 18 of the resolution part of the petition), the Law on Amending the Law on Value Added Tax (Item 19 of the resolution part of the petition), the Law on Amending Article 4 of the Law on Reform of the Pension System (Item 20 of the resolution part of the petition) and the Law on Amending Article 15 of the Provisional Law on Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments (Item 21 of the resolution part of the petition) with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law in view of procedure of adoption.

2.1. The petitioner doubts the compliance of these laws with the Constitution referring to the same argument that, according to the imperative entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the established legislation procedure, the drafts of the separate tax laws, which influence the income and subsidies of the corresponding budget, establish new taxes or new rates and substantially change the taxation procedure and the principles of legal regulation and application of taxation, should have been considered in the Seimas and these laws should have been adopted in the Seimas at first, and only afterwards one could consider and adopt laws whereby the 2012 budgets of the state and municipalities, the State Social Insurance Fund and the Compulsory Health Insurance Fund were approved.

2.2. However, in its petition the petitioner does not specify when these laws were adopted and came into force and does not explain why these laws which, according to the petitioner, came into force later than the laws whereby one approved the budgets of the state, municipalities and the State Social Insurance Fund, in general could not be adopted and come into force later than the laws whereby one approved the 2012 budgets of the state and municipalities, the State Social Insurance Fund and the Compulsory Health Insurance Fund, why the procedure of adoption of laws, specified by the petitioner, should be applied for amendment of these virtually independent and separate laws, i.e. why the laws regarding the amendment of these laws should be adopted and come into force prior to the laws, whereby one approves the 2012 budgets of the state and municipalities, the State Social Insurance Fund and the Compulsory Health Insurance Fund.

2.3. Thus, the petition of the petitioner requesting to investigate the compliance of the laws which are directly related to the budgets of the state, municipalities and the State Social Insurance Fund, in view of the procedure of their adoption, with the Constitution does not comply with the requirements of Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, such a petition is to be returned to the petitioner.

  1. While summing it up, it needs to be held that, as it has been mentioned, the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, did not set forth any clear legal reasoning why it impugns the compliance of the legal acts, specified in Items 1–7, 12–14 and 16–21 of the resolution part of its petition, in view of the procedure of their adoption and/or the content of the norms, with the Constitution, did not provide any the arguments in order to substantiate its doubts regarding the compliance of these legal acts with the Constitution and did not specify how the concrete provision of the Constitution—norms and/or principles, as well as the provisions of the legal acts, whereby one established the procedure of the adoption, publication or entry into force of the legal acts, were violated while adopting or publishing the impugned laws, the Seimas resolution and the Government resolutions. Thus, the petition of the petitioner, to the specified extent, does not comply with the requirements of Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court and, under Article 70 of this law, is to be returned to the petitioner.
  2. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to draw a conclusion that there is a ground to return the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate, whether:

– the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2012 State Budget and the Municipal Budgets in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, whereas, insofar as it approves the predicted income of the 2012 national budget (with the financial support of the European Union and other international financial support) and the subsidies thereof (with the financial support of the European Union and other financial support and including appropriations and compensations for municipal budgets), calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, in view of the content of the norms, is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the Law on the Approval of the Indicators of the 2012 Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the principle of a state under the rule of law and, insofar as it approves the predicted income and expenditures of the 2012 Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund, calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, in view of the content of the norms, is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the Seimas Resolution “On the Planned Indicators of the National Budget of 2012, 2013 and 2014”, in view of the procedure of its adoption and the content of the norms, insofar as the income and expenditures of the budget are calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Government Resolution No. 1182 “On Submission of the Republic of Lithuania Draft Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2012 State Budget and the Municipal Budgets and the Draft Legal Acts Linked to It to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania”, insofar as the income and expenditures of the budget are calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5 and Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Government Resolution No. 1410 “On Submission of the Republic of Lithuania Improved Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2012 State Budget and the Municipal Budgets and the Draft Legal Acts Linked to It to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania”, insofar as the income and expenditures of the budget are calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5 and Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, whereas in view of the procedure of its adoption and entry into force—with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and Paragraph 1 of Article 177 of the Statute of the Seimas;

– Government Resolution No. 1190 “On Submission of the Republic of Lithuania Draft Law on the Approval of the Indicators of the 2012 Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania”, insofar as the income and expenditures of the budget are calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5 and Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the Law on Amending the Law on Payments for Children in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the Law on Amending Article 13 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– the Law on Amending Article 4 of the Law on State Social Relief Payments in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– the Law on Amending Article 6 of the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– the Law on Amending the Law on Value Added Tax in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– the Law on Amending Article 4 of the Law on Reform of the Pension System in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– the Law on Amending Article 15 of the Provisional Law on Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations.

III

  1. The group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, doubts the compliance of inter alia Article 2 of the Law on Supplementing Article 3 of the Law on the Treasury with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (Item 8 of the resolution part of the petition).

1.1. On 22 November 2011, the Seimas adopted the Law on Supplementing Article 3 of the Law on the Treasury which came into force on 8 December 2011. Article 1 of this law supplemented Article 3 of the Law on Treasury (wording of 5 July 2005), while Article 2, whose compliance with the Constitution is doubtful to the petitioner, established the application of the provisions of Article 3 (wording of 5 July 2005) of the supplemented Law on Treasury (wording of 5 July 2005).

Article 2 of the Law on Supplementing Article 3 of the Law on the Treasury, which is impugned by the petitioner, provides: “The provisions of the law are inter alia applied also for the procedure of implementation of the decisions of an arbitration or court when the bailiffs have already directed exaction to the general account of the Treasury, but have not yet distributed or paid the funds to the recoverers.”

Thus, by the legal regulation which is impugned by the petitioner, one established that the provisions of Article 3 (wording of 22 November 2011) of the supplemented Law on the Treasury (wording of 5 July 2005) would be applied also to the already commenced procedures of implementation of the decisions of an arbitration or court, i.e. those procedures when the bailiffs have already directed exaction to the general account of the Treasury, but have not yet distributed or paid the funds to the recoverers.

1.2. In the opinion of the petitioner, Article 2 of the Law on Supplementing Article 3 of the Law on the Treasury violates the principle of retroactive validity of the law which is a constituent part of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

1.3. It needs to be noted that the petitioner, doubting the compliance of the provisions of Article 2 of the Law on Supplementing Article 3 of the Law on the Treasury with the Constitution, does not provide any arguments substantiating such a position in its petition. The petitioner only notes the principle that the law is not effective retroactively (lex retro non agit), however, it does not take account of the provisions of this principle, which are particularly important in the context of the considered petition and which were formulated inter alia in the Constitutional Court ruling of 29 November 2007, as, for instance, the petitioner does not take account of the fact that the power of the legal acts is prospective and the retrospective validity of legal acts is not allowed, unless the situation of legal subjects could be alleviated without prejudice to other legal subjects (lex benignior retro agit) and that neither laws nor sub-statutory legal acts may establish such legal regulation which interferes with the legal relations that are over.

In its petition, the petitioner does not explain why for the legal regulation that it impugns one should not apply the exception of the principle that the law is not effective retroactively, it does not specify whether the impugned relations whose area of regulation is interfered by the legal regulation established in the Law on Supplementing Article 3 of the Law on the Treasury are effective or whether they are over, nor does it discuss and assess the relation of the disputed legal regulation with the said provisions of the official constitutional doctrine.

Thus, it needs to be held that the arguments provided in the petition of the petitioner do not substantiate its position regarding the incompliance of Article 2 of the Law on Supplementing Article 3 of the Law on the Treasury with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

1.4. Consequently, the petition requesting to investigate the compliance of Article 2 of the Law on Supplementing Article 3 of the Law on the Treasury with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law does not comply with the requirements of Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, such a petition is to be returned to the petitioner.

  1. The group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requests to investigate inter alia, whether the Law on Amending the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution, and Articles 5 and 7 of this law, whereas in view of the content of the norms—with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (Items 9–11 of the resolution part of the petition).

2.1. On 1 December 2011, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises with came into force on 1 January 2012 (save a corresponding exception). Article 5 of this law, whose compliance with the Constitution is doubted by the petitioner, amended Article 13 of the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises, whereas Article 7 thereof, whose compliance is also doubted by the petitioner, amended Article 15 of the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises.

2.2. Paragraph 3 of Article 13 (wording of 1 December 2011) of the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises prescribes: “Under the decision of an institution implementing the rights and duties of the owner of the enterprise, funds may be allocated for the enterprise on the basis and procedure established by laws. The decision on registering the increase of the capital of the owner of the enterprise from the funds of the enterprise or from the value of the assets created by the funds allocated to the enterprise, or the property (which, under laws, may be only State-owned) corresponding to the increase of the part of the capital, shall be adopted by the Government or the municipal board under procedure established by the Government.”

2.2.1. According to the petitioner, “due to the fact that Paragraph 3 (wording of 1 December 2011) of Article 13 of the Law on Amending the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises did not provide that on the basis and procedure established by laws, funds may be allocated for the state enterprise under the decision of an institution implementing the rights and duties of the owner of the enterprise, there emerged a legal gap”.

Thus, the petitioner actually impugns not the legal regulation which is established in the law expressis verbis, but the legislative omission which, in its opinion, exists in this law, i.e. it impugns something which has not been established in this law, even though, in the opinion of the petitioner, under the Constitution, it should have been established by the legislator, i.e., the petitioner impugns such a gap in the legal regulation, which, in the opinion of the petitioner, is prohibited by the Constitution.

2.2.2. It needs to be noted that the Constitutional Court has held more than once that a legal gap, inter alia legislative omission, always means that the legal regulation of corresponding social relations is established neither explicitly, nor implicitly, neither in a concrete legal act (part thereof), nor any other legal acts at all, even though there exists a need for the legal regulation of these social relations, while the said legal regulation, in case of legislative omission, must be established precisely in that legal act (precisely in that part thereof), since this is required by a certain legal act of higher power, inter alia the Constitution itself (Constitutional Court rulings of 2 March 2009, 22 June 2009, 11 December 2009, 29 September 2010, 29 November 2010, 7 July 2011 and 22 December 2011). The Constitutional Court has also held that the petition of the petitioner, which is based on the legislative omission presumed by him, may be accepted and the case may be commenced subsequent to the petition of the petitioner only in the case that the arguments and reasoning are set forth in the petition, which ground that the non-established legal regulation must, under the Constitution, be established namely in the part of the legal act indicated by the petitioner (Constitutional Court decisions of 16 April 2004 and 16 November 2010).

2.2.3. In its petition the petitioner does not provide any arguments why, in its opinion, the non-established legal regulation must be established namely in the disputed legal act (namely in that part thereof), nor does it specify any provisions of the Constitution, on the grounds of which such a legal regulation must be established in the disputed provision.

2.2.4. Consequently, the petition of the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Article 5 of the Law on Amending the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises in view of the content of the norms is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, does not comply with the requirements of Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, such a petition is to be returned to the petitioner.

2.3. It has been mentioned that the petitioner also doubts the compliance of Article 7 of the Law on Amending the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises whereby, as it has been mentioned, Article 15 of the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises was amended, with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

Article 15 (wording of 1 December 2011) of the Law on State and Municipal Institutions, whereby one regulates distribution of profit (losses) of state and municipal enterprises, inter alia establishes that a part of the profit of the state and municipal institutions may be allocated to the owners of these enterprises—the state or the municipality, provided that the enterprises pay the profit contribution to the state or municipal budget.

2.3.1. The petitioner substantiates its doubts regarding the compliance of Article 7 of the Law on Amending the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law by the fact that, according to it, the provisions of this article are not harmonised with the provisions of the Civil Code.

2.3.2. It needs to be noted that, as it has been held more than once, under the Constitution, the Constitutional Court does not decide the issues of compatibility and rivalry of legal acts of the same power (Constitutional Court decisions of 29 September 1999, 13 November 2006, 27 June 2007, 6 September 2007 and 12 September 2007). If the laws contain obscurities, ambiguities, and gaps, it is the duty of the legislature to eliminate them (Constitutional Court decisions of 23 September 2002, 13 November 2006 and 27 June 2007); non-coordination of the norms between legal acts of the same power may indicate inconsistency and even deficiency of legal regulation, but in itself this may not serve as grounds for recognition that one of these acts contradicts the Constitution (Constitutional Court ruling of 21 December 1999). If the Constitutional Court is requested to solve an issue of compatibility and rivalry of legal acts of the same power, such a request is not within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court (inter alia Constitutional Court decisions of 13 November 2006 and 27 June 2007).

2.3.3. In its petition the petitioner refers to the official constitutional doctrine formulated in the Constitutional Court ruling of 29 May 1997, whereby “The prerogative of the Seimas to adopt <…> laws and sub-statutory acts is uncontested, however, the Seimas must conform to the procedure established by the Constitution and universally recognised principles of co-ordination of legal acts”, however, from the entirety of the arguments of its petition it is not clear why the Constitutional Court should assess the constitutionality namely of the disputed provision and not of that other legal act, and why the provisions of the disputed legal act are in conflict with the concrete provisions of the Constitution.

2.3.4. Thus, the petition requesting to investigate whether Article 7 of the Law on Amending the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises in view of the content of the norms is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, does not comply with the requirements of Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, such a petition is to be returned to the petitioner.

2.4. As it has been mentioned, the petitioner also doubts the compliance of the Law on Amending the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises with the Constitution in view of procedure of adoption.

2.4.1. According to the petitioner, when adopting this law, the Seimas did not follow the established procedure of adoption of laws (Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution), as in the Conclusion “On the Draft Law on Amending Articles 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 of the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises” adopted by the Legal Department of the Seimas on 25 October 2011, according to the petitioner, one specified the possible conflicts of the adopted draft law with the Constitution. Under Paragraph 2 of Article 138 of the Statute of the Seimas, if the Legal Department presents conclusions that a draft is not in compliance with the Constitution, the Committee on Legal Affairs must preliminary consider this draft. However, the draft of the impugned law was not preliminary considered by the Seimas Committee on Legal Affairs.

2.4.2. It needs to be noted that the conclusion (mentioned by the petitioner), which was adopted on 25 October 2011 by the Legal Department of the Seimas, actually did not specify that a legal act may be in conflict with the Constitution, but presented other remarks.

Thus, the petition of the petitioner requesting to investigate the compliance of the Law on Amending the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises with the Constitution is grounded not on the legal reasoning which is explicitly specified by the petitioner.

2.4.3. Under Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, by its decision, the Constitutional Court shall refuse to consider petitions to investigate the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution, if the consideration of the petition is grounded on non-legal reasoning.

It needs to be held that there is a ground to refuse to consider the petition of the petitioner requesting to investigate the compliance of the Law on Amending the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises, in view of the procedure of its adoption, with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution.

  1. The group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requests to investigate inter alia the compliance of Articles 4 and 6 of the Law on Amending the Law on Payments for Children and Article 1 of the Law on Amending Article 4 of the Law on State Social Relief Payments with the Constitution in view of the content of the norms (Items 15 and 17 of the resolution part of the petition).

3.1. It needs to be noted that even though the petitioner requests to investigate whether “Articles 4 and 6 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and Amending the Title of the Third Section of the Law on Payments for Children (Number: XI-1756; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 20/12/2011, No. 155-7350) in view of their content are not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution”, such a legal act is not and has never been adopted, and it is obvious from the entirety of the petition of the petitioner that actually it doubts the compliance of the Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and the Titles of the Third and Sixth Sections of the Law on Payments for Children and Recognising Article 21 Thereof as No Longer Valid with the Constitution.

3.1.1. On 1 December 2011, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and the Titles of the Third and Sixth Sections of the Law on Payments for Children and Recognising Article 21 Thereof as No Longer Valid which came into force on 1 January 2012 (save a corresponding exception). Article 4 of this law, whose compliance with the Constitution is doubted by the petitioner, amended Article 6 of the Law on Payments for Children, whereas Article 6 thereof, whose compliance with the Constitution is also doubted by the petitioner, amended Article 8 of the Law on Payments for Children.

Article 6 (wording of 1 December 2011) of the Law on Payments for Children inter alia establishes smaller payments for children who are raised and/or are under guardianship.

Article 8 (wording of 1 December 2011) of the Law on Payments for Children regulates the payment of guardianship (curatorship) payment and a targeted guardianship (curatorship) payment supplement.

3.1.2. The petitioner substantiates its position regarding the incompliance of the impugned provisions with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations by the statement that “the principle of legitimate expectations would require to establish a reasonable (at least longer than one month) term which would permit the subjects to rationally plan their income”, however, it does not explain this statement in any way and does not specify what the duration of the term should be and taking account of what it is to be established, how namely, because of such non-established term, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations is violated; while making an assumption that the petitioner actually doubts the compliance of the impugned provision with the Constitution due to the fact that the term of its coming into force is not established, it is not clear, why one impugns its compliance with the Constitution in view of the content of the norms.

3.1.3. The petitioner also doubts the compliance of the impugned legal regulation, whereby one established the payments for children who are raised and/or are under guardianship, with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution, however, in its petition it only presents the provisions of the impugned Law on Amending the Law on Payments for Children and of the Civil Code, but it does not ground why the impugned legal norms are in conflict namely with the aforementioned provisions of the Constitution.

3.1.4. Consequently, the petition requesting to investigate the compliance of Articles 4 and 6 of the Law on Amending the Law on Payments for Children with the Constitution in view of the content of their norms, does not comply with the requirements of Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, such a petition is to be returned to the petitioner.

3.2. As it has been mentioned, the petitioner doubts inter alia, whether Article 1 of the Law on Amending Article 4 of the Law on State Social Relief Payments in view of its content is not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations.

3.2.1. On 1 December 2011, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending Article 4 of the Law on State Social Relief Payments which came into force on 1 January 2012 (save a corresponding exception). Article 1 of this law amended Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law on State Social Relief Payments.

Paragraph 2 (wording of 1 December 2011) of Article 4 of the Law on State Social Relief Payments prescribes:

“Up to 4% of funds allotted for social relief payments shall be used to administrate them, 1% of which (of the funds allotted for payment of social assistance benefits) for increasing the remuneration for employees carrying out social work. The concrete percentage of the funds allotted for administration of social relief payments shall be laid down by the Minister of Social Security and Labour until the beginning of the budget year. For the administration of the funds of social relief payments one shall use not a bigger sum of the funds than the established percentage of funds (allotted for administration of social assistance benefits) from the used funds for paying the payments.”

3.2.2. In the petition of the petitioner it is specified that the impugned provision enshrines that under this law one shall recalculate the targeted compensations of expenditure for targeted nursing and attendance (assistance) which were allocated before this law, however, the petitioner does not provide any arguments substantiating its position regarding the compliance of the impugned provision with the Constitution.

The petitioner states that “referring to the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, one must establish the rules that would consolidate the rules of non-reduction of the already allocated targeted compensations”, however, it does not explain when and what legitimate expectations were created and how they are violated by means of the impugned legal regulation.

3.2.3. The petitioner also states that, in its opinion, “the principle of legitimate expectations would require to establish a reasonable (at least longer than one month) term which would permit the subjects to rationally plan their income”, however it does not explain this statement in any way and does not specify what the duration of the term should be and taking account of what it is to be established, namely how because of such non-established term the principle of protection of legitimate expectations is violated; while making an assumption that the petitioner actually doubts the compliance of the impugned provision with the Constitution due to the fact that the term of its coming into force is not established, it is not clear, why one impugns its compliance with the Constitution in view of the content of the norms.

3.2.4. Thus, the petition requesting to investigate whether Article 1 of the Law on Amending Article 4 of the Law on State Social Relief Payments in view of its content is not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations, does not comply with the requirements of Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, such a petition is to be returned to the petitioner.

  1. The group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, also requests to investigate whether Articles 1 and 3 and Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Amending the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property are not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations (Item 22 of the resolution part of the petition).

4.1. On 10 November 2011, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, which came into force on 1 February 2012 (save a corresponding exception). Articles 1 and 3 of this law, whose compliance with the Constitution are doubted by the petitioner, correspondingly amended Articles 10 and 21 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, whereas Article 4 thereof, whose compliance with the Constitution is also doubted by the petitioner, establishes the entry into force of said law and its implementation.

Paragraph 2 of Article 10 (wording of 10 November 2011) of the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, which, as it has been mentioned, was amended by Article 1 of the Law on Amending the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, inter alia provides that the rights of ownership to the existing real property of the citizens, whose applications for the restoration of the rights of ownership to real property have been filed after 10 September 1993, shall be restored by giving back land and forest in kind or it shall be compensated in the ways specified in the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, except in cash.

Paragraph 2 of Article 21 (wording of 10 November 2011) of the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, which, as it has been mentioned, was amended by Article 3 of the Law on Amending the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, which is impugned by the petitioner, inter alia provides that citizens, who filed applications to restore the rights of ownership to the land which prior to 1 June 1995 was attributed in the prescribed manner to the territory of towns, may, if a decision has not been adopted concerning the restoration of the rights of ownership, change before 1 June 2012 the wish regarding the form of compensation and request to receive compensation in cash for the land bought out by the state.

Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Amending the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property which is also impugned by the petitioner provides that until 1 February 2012 the Government must prepare and approve the legal acts implementing this law.

4.2. According to the petitioner, Article 1 of the Law on Amending the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property enshrines a legal regulation (whereby one establishes a possibility for citizens, who have been restored the rights of ownership to land in the territory of towns, to choose compensation in cash for this land, and not in other ways) which could “violate the interests of citizens who could not choose such a way of compensation as compensation in cash, and their legitimate expectations, as well as raise a conflict between these citizens and the citizens who, upon the adoption of the law, could already choose the aforementioned way of compensation.”

The petitioner provides the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations formulated by the Constitutional Court, however, it does not specify any clear legal reasoning substantiating its doubt as regards the compliance of the impugned regulation with the specified principles. The petitioner does not explain how the persons who have been restored the rights to the land in the territory of towns could acquire legitimate expectations to use the right to choose the way of restoration of the rights of ownership—compensation in cash.

4.3. The petitioner also notes that the term (1 June 2012) for application on changing one’s resolve which is established by the legal regulation entrenched in Article 3 of the Law on Amending the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property is not reasonable. However, the petitioner does not explain why, in its opinion, the term which is enshrined in the impugned provision is not reasonable and namely how the legislator, establishing such a term, violated the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations.

4.4. It needs to be noted that in its petition regarding the compliance of Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Amending the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, which provides that until 1 February 2012 the Government must prepare and approve the legal acts implementing this law, with the Constitution, the petitioner did not provide any arguments substantiating its doubt.

4.5. It needs to be held that in the petition of the petitioner, one did not provide any legal arguments substantiating its position regarding the incompliance of the aforementioned impugned provisions with the Constitution.

Thus, the petition of the petitioner requesting to investigate whether Articles 1 and 3 and Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Amending the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property are not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations does not comply with the requirements of Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, such a petition is to be returned to the petitioner.

  1. The group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requests to investigate whether inter alia Article 1 of the Law on Amending the Law on Compensation for the Real Property Bought Out by the State is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (Item 23 of the resolution part of the petition).

5.1. On 10 November 2011, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending the Law on Compensation for the Real Property Bought Out by the State which came into force on 1 February 2012 (save a corresponding exception). Article 1 of this law, the compliance of the provisions whereof with the Constitution is doubted by the petitioner, amended Paragraph 4 of Article 7 of the Law on Compensation for the Real Property Bought Out by the State.

Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 November 2011) of Article 7 of the Law on Compensation for the Real Property Bought Out by the State inter alia established the terms for compensation for the real property bought out by the state:

“In case when the decision to restore the rights of ownership was adopted after 1 January 2009 and till 31 December 2010, the citizens shall be paid the monetary compensation for the bought out land, forest or water bodies in 2011, when after 1 January 2011—on the following calendar year after the adoption of such a decision (save the monetary compensation for the land bought out by the state which, under the established procedure, had been attributed to the territories of towns until 1 June 1995, when the decision to restore the rights of ownership was adopted after 31 January 2012). In such a case when the decision to restore the rights of ownership was adopted after 31 January 2012, the citizens shall be paid a monetary compensation for the land bought out by the state which, under the established procedure, had been attributed to the territories of towns until 1 June 1995 under the procedure established by the Government from the funds provided for this purpose in the Law on the Approval of Financial Indicators of the State Budget and Municipal Budgets. When the decision to restore the rights of ownership was adopted after the term specified in Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of this Article, the monetary compensation for the bought out houses, parts thereof and apartments shall be paid to the citizens on the following calendar year after the adoption of such a decision. When the decision to restore the rights of ownership to the existing real property regarding the persons enumerated in Items 2, 3 and 4 of this Article was adopted after 1 January 2009 and till 31 December 2010, they shall be paid the monetary compensation in 2011, and when after 1 January 2011—on the following calendar year after the adoption of such a decision.”

5.2. According to the petitioner, from the provisions of Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 November 2011) of Article 7 of the Law on Compensation for the Real Property Bought Out by the State which, as it has been mentioned, was amended by Article 1 of the Law on Amending the Law on Compensation for the Real Property Bought Out by the State which is disputed by the petitioner, it is not clear when the citizens would be paid monetary compensations for the land of towns which was attributed to the territories of towns until 1 June 1995, if the decisions regarding restoration of the rights of ownership were adopted after 31 January 2012.

The petitioner refers to the provisions of the Constitutional Court ruling of 23 August 2005, under which “the legal regulation in establishing the amounts of portions of the monetary compensation (which must be paid periodically) for individual objects (their types) of real property which are specified in the law and the terms (periodicity) of the payment, regardless of whether this is established by the law or by a Government resolution in accordance of the criteria consolidated in the law, must be such so that it should be clear what portion of the monetary compensation and when (within what period) must be paid to the persons who enjoy the right to receive this compensation”.

5.3. It needs to be held that the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 November 2011) of Article 7 of the Law on Compensation for the Real Property Bought Out by the State is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, is grounded on legal reasoning, therefore, this request is acceptable for consideration at the Constitutional Court.

  1. It needs to be noted that the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, also contains deficiencies, inter alia in this petition one does not specify the wordings of the legal acts whose compliance with the Constitution is requested to investigate by the petitioner; in the petition of the petitioner one also mentions more legal acts (i.e. the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 30, 31 and 53 and Annex 3 of the Law on Excise Duty, the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Articles 5, 12, 461, 51, 57 and 58 of the Law on Profit Tax), however, subsequently in the petition the compliance of either these legal acts or the provisions of these legal acts with the Constitution is not doubted.
  2. While summing it up, it needs to be held that, as it has been mentioned, the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, did not set forth any clear legal reasoning why it impugns the compliance of the legal acts specified in Items 8, 9–10, 15, 17 and 22 of the resolution part of its petition with the Constitution, in view of the content of the norms, and did not provide any arguments to substantiate its doubts regarding the compliance of these legal acts with the Constitution. Thus, the petition of the petitioner, to the specified extent, does not comply with the requirements of Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court and under Article 70 of this law is to be returned to the petitioner.

Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to draw a conclusion that there is a ground to return the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether:

– Article 2 of the Law on Supplementing Article 3 of the Law on the Treasury is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Articles 5 and 7 of the Law on Amending the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises in view of the content of the norms are not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Articles 4 and 6 of the Law on Amending the Law on Payments for Children in view of the content of the norms is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution, with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Article 1 of the Law on Amending Article 4 of the Law on State Social Relief Payments in view of the content of its norms is not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– Articles 1 and 3 and Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Amending the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property are not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations.

  1. It also needs to be held that, as it has been mentioned, the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the Law on Amending the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with the Constitution (Item 11 of the resolution part of the petition) is not grounded on the legal reasoning, therefore, under Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, one is to refuse to consider this petition of the petitioner.

Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to draw a conclusion that one is to refuse to consider the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the Law on Amending the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

Conforming to Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of Article 25, Article 28, Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66, Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 and Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has passed the following

decision:

  1. To accept the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 November 2011, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 143-6707) of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Compensation for the Real Property Bought Out by the State (wording of 14 October 2003, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2003, No. 102-4582) is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  2. To return the petition (No. 1B-3/2012) of the group of Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether:

– the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2012 State Budget and the Municipal Budgets (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 163-7741) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, whereas, insofar as it approves the predicted income of the 2012 national budget (with the financial support of the European Union and other international financial support) and the subsidies thereof (with the financial support of the European Union and other financial support and including appropriations and compensations for municipal budgets) in view of the content of the norms is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval of the Indicators of the 2012 Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 161-7620) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the principle of a state under the rule of law, whereas, insofar as it approves the predicted income and expenses of the 2012 Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund, calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, in view of the content of the norms is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Planned Indicators of the National Budget of 2012, 2013 and 2014” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 158-7468), in view of the procedure of its adoption and the content of the norms, insofar as the income and expenditures of the budget are calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 1182 “On Submission of the Republic of Lithuania Draft Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2012 State Budget and the Municipal Budgets and the Draft Legal Acts Linked to It to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 125-5951), insofar as the income and expenditures of the budget are calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5 and Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 1140 “On Submission of the Republic of Lithuania Improved Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2012 State Budget and the Municipal Budgets and the Draft Legal Acts Linked to It to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 150-7066), insofar as the income and expenses of the budget are calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5 and Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, whereas in view of the procedure of its adoption and coming into force—with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and Paragraph 1 of Article 177 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania;

– Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 1190 “On Submission of the Republic of Lithuania Draft Law on the Approval of the Indicators of the 2012 Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 125-5959), insofar as the income and expenditures of the budget are calculated not according to the effective and adopted legal acts, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5 and Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Supplementing Article 3 of the Law on the Treasury (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 150-7031) is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Articles 5 and 7 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Articles 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 of the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 150-7051, correction—Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 20) in view of the content of their norms are not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and the Titles of the Third and Sixth Sections of the Law on Payments for Children and Recognising Article 21 Thereof as No Longer Valid (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 155-7350) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, whereas Articles 4 and 6 of this law, in view of the content of the norms—with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Article 13 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 160-7570) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– the Law on Amending Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Social Relief Payments (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 155-7351) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations, whereas Article 1 of this law, in view of the content of the norms—with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Article 6 of the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 160-7569) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 51, 14, 19, 31, 32, 36, 43, 47, 49, 53, 57, 64, 66, 71, 711, 78, 79, 80, 83 and 92 of the Law on Value Added Tax, Supplementing Annex 2 Thereof, Recognising Article 82 Thereof as No Longer Valid and Supplementing This Law with Articles 631, 781 and 891 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 161-7616) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Article 4 of the Law on Reform of the Pension System (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 160-7574) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Article 15 of the Provisional Law on Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 160-7573) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations;

– Articles 1 and 3 and Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Articles 10, 16 and 21 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 143-6706) are not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations.

  1. To refuse to consider the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Articles 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 of the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 150-7051, correction—Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 20) in view of the procedure of its adoption is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 69 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

                                                                                                        Dainius Žalimas