Lt

On refusing to interpret a ruling of the Constitutional Court

Case No. 14/96

 

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 

D E C I S I O N

 

On the petition requesting the construction of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of 20 January 1997

 

9 April 1997, Vilnius

 

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the justices of the Constitutional Court: Egidijus Jarašiūnas, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Augustinas Normantas, Vladas Pavilonis, Jonas Prapiestis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius, Teodora Staugaitienė, and Juozas Žilys

The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė

Benjaminas Merčaitis, Head of the Labour Relations Division of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, and Vita Safjan, Head of the Analysis and Prognosis Division of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, acting as the representatives of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Article 61 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Constitutional Court, in its public hearing considered a petition of the representatives of the Government, the party concerned, requesting the construction of the Constitutional Court’s Ruling “On the Compliance of Item 3.1 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1004) ‘On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration’ of 23 August 1996 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Paragraph 1 of Article 499 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Work Pay” of 20 January 1997.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

On 20 January 1997, the Constitutional Court passed a ruling wherein it was recognised that Item 3.1 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1004) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 23 August 1996 contradicted Paragraph 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as Paragraph 1 of Article 499 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Work Pay. The representatives of the party concerned request in their petition of 19 February 1997 the construction of certain questions which they had faced in connection with the said ruling.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

1. The representatives of the party concerned request the construction of whether Item 3.2 of the impugned government resolution became no longer valid after Item 3.1 of the said resolution had been recognised contradicting Paragraph 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as Paragraph 1 of Article 499 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Work Pay.

The Constitutional Court notes that the issue of the legality of Item 3.2 of the impugned resolution was not investigated in the case in question as the petitioner had not submitted any respective petition as regards this problem.

Alongside, it should be noted that the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 288) “On the Recognition of Items 3, 3.1 and 3.2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1004) ‘On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration’ of 23 August 1996 as No Longer Valid” of 17 March 1997 by which it recognised that Items 3, 3.1 and 3.2 of the impugned resolution became no longer valid (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1997, No. 25-573).

2. The representatives of the party concerned request the construction as to the application of the conclusion drawn in the statement part of the ruling that “in cases when an employee’s hourly remuneration (monthly salary) prior to the injury was less than the established minimum hourly remuneration (minimum monthly salary), the damage compensation must be calculated according to the minimum work remuneration established by law”.

The Constitutional Court points out that the conclusion in question of the Constitutional Court is based on the norm of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Work Pay stipulating that “an employee’s hourly remuneration (monthly salary) may not be less than the minimum hourly remuneration (monthly salary) established by the State”. Thus the representatives of the party concerned request the construction of the matters concerning the application of a legal norm. However, the application of legal norms and their interpretation is a prerogative of the institutions that apply the said norms, as well as that of courts.

3. The representatives of the party concerned request the construction as to the application of Article 72 of the Law on the Constitutional Court after the pronouncement of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 20 January 1997.

The Constitutional Court notes that Article 72 of the aforesaid law was not a matter of the investigation in the case in question, therefore, it may not be construed.

4. In view of the arguments set forth, the petition of the party concerned requesting the construction of certain questions in connection with the ruling in question of the Constitutional Court is to be declined.

Conforming to Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania adopts the following

decision:

To refuse to construe the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of 20 January 1997.

Justices of the Constitutional Court:

 

Egidijus Jarašiūnas     Kęstutis Lapinskas      Zigmas Levickis

 

Augustinas Normantas      Vladas Pavilonis      Jonas Prapiestis

 

Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius      Teodora Staugaitienė     Juozas Žilys