Lt

On the official remuneration of customs officers

Case No. 16/2000

 

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 

R U L I N G

 

On the compliance of Items 6 and 7.2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 942) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 27 August 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 22 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Employment Contracts

 

Vilnius, 18 December 2001

 

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court: Egidijus Jarašiūnas, Egidijus Kūris, Zigmas Levickis, Augustinas Normantas, Vladas Pavilonis, Jonas Prapiestis, Vytautas Sinkevičius, Stasys Stačiokas, and Teodora Staugaitienė

The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė

Nerijus Rudaitis, Head of the Legal Expertise Division of the Law Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, the representative of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, on 29 November 2001, in its public hearing considered case No. 16/2000 subsequent to the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into the compliance of Items 6 and 7.2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 942) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 27 August 1999 with Article 48, Item 2 of Article 94, Article 131 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 22 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Employment Contracts.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

The petitioner—the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court—was considering an administrative case. The said court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting an investigation into the compliance of Items 6 and 7.2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 942) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 27 August 1999 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 73-2257; hereinafter also referred to as the Resolution) with Article 48, Item 2 of Article 94, Article 131 of the Constitution and Article 22 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Employment Contracts (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1991, No. 36-973).

II

The petition of the petitioner is based on the following arguments.

1. By means of Items 6 and 7 of the Resolution, the Government recognised Item 9 together with Item 9.3 of the Government Resolution (No. 357) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 14 April 1997 as no longer valid. By means of Item 9.3 thereof, it had been permitted to increase, up to 2 times, the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the heads, officers and specialists of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania and of territorial customs who exercise the functions related to their main activities, which had been established in Annex 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 499) “On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies” of 29 November 1991. By means of the Resolution, the Government recognised Item 2 together with Item 2.3 of the Government Resolution (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997 as no longer valid. By means of Item 2.3 thereof, it had been permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the established official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the Director and deputy directors of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance, heads and deputy heads of its divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs-houses, chiefs of customs divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs posts, chiefs of subdivisions of customs posts, and chiefs of shifts of customs posts without exceeding the finances allocated for work remuneration.

The petitioner points out that the Government Resolution (No. 942) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 27 August 1999 was adopted prior to the enactment of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 1999 State Budget and Municipal Budgets, therefore, the petitioner doubts whether this is in conformity with Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution wherein it is provided that expenditures established by law may not be reduced as long as said laws are not amended

2. In its petition the petitioner points out that the Resolution was adopted without making any reference to laws, even though Article 94 of the Constitution and Article 22 of the Law on the Government of the Republic of Lithuania provide that the Government shall implement laws and resolutions of the Seimas concerning the implementation of laws, as well as the decrees of the President of the Republic. Therefore, the petitioner doubts whether the impugned items of the Resolution are in compliance with Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution.

3. The petitioner maintains that under Article 8 of the Law on Employment Contracts, the salary is one of the conditions agreed upon in each employment contract. Paragraph 1 of Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contracts provides that an employer has the right to change an employee’s working conditions only when this change is related to changes in production or technology, or when the organisation of labour is being changed and the employer has to change the working conditions as a result. The employer must inform the employer about the planned changed in working conditions no later than one month prior to the introduction of such changes (Paragraph 2 of Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contracts). If an employee refuses to work under changed working conditions, he or she may be discharged from work in the manner established in Paragraph 9 of Article 26 of the Law on Employment Contracts (Paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contracts).

The petitioner points out in the petition that, on 15 November 1999, the Chief of the Vilnius Territorial Customs issued the Order (No. 369-K) “On Remuneration”. This order was issued by implementing the Resolution, i.e. in the absence of one of the circumstances provided for in Paragraph 1 of Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contracts, which is the changing of one of the conditions of the employment contract—remuneration for work. Besides, it is established in Item 13 of the Resolution that the said Resolution shall come into force as of 1 September 1999. The petitioner maintains that this provision did not create the conditions for the employers to fulfil the requirements established in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contracts, therefore, the petitioner doubts whether the impugned items of the Resolution are in compliance with Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contracts.

4. The petitioner points out that it is guaranteed in Article 48 of the Constitution that every person shall have the right adequate compensation for work. The official remuneration for officers of the Vilnius Territorial Customs increased as of 1 September 1997 used to be established until the end of every calendar year on the grounds of governmental resolutions. The finances for such payments were provided for in the budgets of 1998 and 1999, while the payment was cancelled on the grounds of the Resolution the compliance whereof with Paragraph 2 of Article 131 and Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution is doubted by the petitioner. The petitioner also doubts whether the impugned items of the Resolution are in compliance with Article 48 of the Constitution.

III

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were received from the representatives of the party concerned—the Government—A. Bartkevičius, Head of the Employment Relations and Remuneration Division of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania and E. Žukauskas, the chief specialist of the Legal Expertise Division of the then Ministry of Administration Reform and Municipal Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as from N. Rudaitis, Head of the Legal Expertise Division of the Law Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania. The representatives of the party concerned presented the following arguments.

1. In the opinion of A. Bartkevičius and E. Žukauskas, the doubt of the petitioner as to the compliance of Items 6, 7 and 7.1 of the Government Resolution (No. 942) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 27 August 1999 with Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution is groundless as the Resolution does not contain any provisions on reduction of officials salaries. In this case the important thing is the date of the commencement of the enforcement of this Resolution but not the date of its adoption. The enforcement of the Resolution commenced only after the enactment of the Law Amending the Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 1999 State Budget and Municipal Budgets.

According to A. Bartkevičius and E. Žukauskas, the doubt of the petitioner whether Items 6, 7 and 7.1 of the Resolution are in compliance with Paragraph 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution as, allegedly, in the course of the adoption of the Resolution no reference was made to laws, is groundless. In the opinion of the representatives of the party concerned, the provision entrenched in Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution that the Government shall implement laws and resolutions of the Seimas concerning the implementation of laws, as well as the decrees of the President of the Republic is one of the functions of the Government listed in the Constitution. If one points out only this provision, the scope of the empowerment of the Government is reduced. Paragraph 2 of Article 32 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Public Service provides that the amount of the positional salary for public servants shall be determined in accordance with the coefficient of the positional salary the rates whereof for different grades shall be set forth by law. However, as such a law has not been adopted yet, the conditions of remuneration for work for public servants are established by governmental resolutions.

The representatives of the party concerned note that the Government adopted the impugned Resolution in an attempt to implement the provision “to improve the system of remuneration for work of the employees whose salaries are paid from the budget of the Republic of Lithuania and from municipal budgets” of the Programme of the Government Activities for 1999-2000. This Resolution, while taking account of the existing economic and financial situation and the necessity to economise and use budgetary means in a more efficient manner, as well as to remove unreasonable disproportions of remuneration for work created in certain state institutions, adjusted certain conditions of remuneration for work for certain public servants.

Under Article 2 of the Law on Public Service, customs officers and other public servants to whom Items 6, 7 and 7.1 of the Resolution are applicable are civil servants. Under Article 62 of the Law on Public Service, they acquired the status of a public servant within 5 days after entry into force (30 July 1999) of the Law on Public Service. Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Law on Public Service provides that employment contracts shall not be concluded with civil servants. Therefore, in the opinion of the representatives of the party concerned, the provisions of Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contracts are not applicable to customs officers and other civil servants.

A. Bartkevičius and E. Žukauskas maintain that the doubt of the petitioner whether the Resolution is in compliance with the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution which guarantees that every person shall be compensated for work adequately is unreasonable as no arguments have been presented confirming that after the adoption of the impugned Resolution the compensation for work became unfair.

2. The representative of the party concerned N. Rudaitis, virtually approving of the written explanations by A. Bartkevičius and E. Žukauskas, presented additional explanations. It is noted therein that the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution that every person shall have the right to adequate compensation for work means that every person has the right to receive compensation guaranteeing adequate subsistence level for him and his family members, extra pay for working overtime and extraordinary working conditions, equal pay for men and women for the same work, a proper notice in advance concerning the time of dismissal from work, restriction of deductions from the remuneration for work. The Resolution amended the legal norms which had permitted increasing the official remuneration of public servants of certain state institutions and establishments. However, even though after the opportunity to increase the official remuneration had been removed, the sizes of the official remuneration established by the Resolution were not in conflict with the provisions of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Wages and the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Individual Income Security which establish the minimum size of remuneration for work along with the other guarantees related to remuneration for work. In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, Items 6, 7 and 7.1 of the Resolution are in compliance with Article 48 of the Constitution.

Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution provides for the duty of the Government to implement laws and resolutions of the Seimas concerning the implementation of laws, as well as the decrees of the President of the Republic. This is only one of the functions of the Government. Along with this function, Article 94 of the Constitution provides also for such functions of the Government as administration of the affairs of the country, protection of the inviolability of the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, ensuring the state security and public order, the coordination of the activities of the ministries and other governmental establishments, the discharging of other duties which may be prescribed to the Government by the Constitution and other laws. According to the representative of the party concerned, the fact whether a governmental resolution makes a reference to a respective law, resolution of the Seimas or a decree of the President of the Republic should not and could not determine whether the Government implements laws and resolutions of the Seimas concerning the implementation of laws, as well as the decrees of the President of the Republic or whether it does not implement them. The representative of the party concerned is of the opinion that Items 6, 7 and 7.1 of the Resolution are in compliance with Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution.

According to the representative of the party concerned, the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution that expenditures established by law may not be reduced as long as said laws are not amended should be understood as meaning that it is not permitted to reduce the allocations for a state institution or establishment which have been provided for in the law on the approval of financial indicators of the state budget and municipal budgets for a particular year. The allocations were not reduced by the Resolution, i.e. on the basis of the Resolution neither the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance nor the Vilnius Territorial Customs were allocated less finances than provided in the Law Amending the Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 1999 State Budget and Municipal Budgets. In the opinion of N. Rudaitis, Items 6, 7 and 7.1 of the Resolution are in compliance with Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution.

The representative of the party concerned is of the opinion that the Resolution did not change the working conditions of either the customs officers of the Vilnius Territorial Customs or other public servants. The Resolution merely amended the legal norms which had provided for an opportunity to increase the official remuneration and which concrete state institutions and establishments (heads of these state institutions and establishments) were entitled to implement, therefore, Items 6, 7 and 7.1 of the said Resolution are in compliance with Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contracts.

IV

In the course of the preparation of the case for the judicial consideration, written explanations were received from I. Degutienė, Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Social Affairs and Labour of the Seimas, G. Švedas, Vice-Minister of Justice, E. Gustas, Vice-Minister of the Interior, V. Vadapalas, Director General of the European Law Department under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, Dr. E. Šileikis, a senior assistant at the Department of Public Law of the Faculty of Law, Vilnius University, P. Abaravičius, an Acting State Chief Labour Inspector of the Republic of Lithuania, G. Gruzdienė, Deputy Chairperson of the Lithuanian Trade Union Alliance and A. Kvedaravičius, First Deputy Chairperson of the Lithuanian Trade Union Centre.

V

At the Constitutional Court hearing, the representative of the party concerned—the Government—N. Rudaitis virtually reiterated the arguments set down in his written explanations.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. On 27 August 1999, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 942) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” which provided:

<…> 6. To recognise Items 9 and 10.1 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 357) ‘On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations’ of 14 April 1997 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1997, No. 33-834) as no longer valid.

7. To partially amend the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1997, No. 64-1511, No. 71-1804, No. 93-2334, No. 117-3027; 1998, No. 91-2528):

7.1. to cross out the words ‘for the Commander-in-Chief of the interior service units of the Ministry of the Interior, the Commissioner General of the Police Department’ in Item 1.1;

7.2. to recognise Items 1.3 and 2 as no longer valid;

7.3. to set forth Items 3.1 and 3.2 as follows:

3.1. decisions on the increase of the official remuneration for the heads and officials pointed out in Item 1.2 of this Resolution shall be adopted by the heads of respective institutions;

3.2. for the heads, judges and officials to whom the official remuneration is increased under the procedure established in this Resolution’;

7.4. to cross out the words ‘and those of Item 9 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 357) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 14 April 1997 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1997, No. 33-834, No. 60-1427)’ from Item 3.2.1;

7.5. instead of the word ‘functionary’, to enter the word ‘official’ in Item 3.3.”

Item 9 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 357) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 14 April 1997 (wording of 13 February 1999) provided:

9. To permit

9.1. the increase, up to 2 times, of the maximum sizes of the coefficients of the official salary schemes, established in Annex 2 of the 29 November 1991 resolution (No. 499) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of this Resolution), of heads and specialists of the Law Department and the Courts Inspection Department of the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Courts under the Ministry of Justice and those of the coefficients of the official salary schemes, established in Annex 1 of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 511 of 8 July 1993 (wording of this Resolution), of experts of the Lithuanian Forensics Institute;

9.2. the increase, up to 2.5 times, of the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients), established in Annex 2 of the 29 November 1991 resolution (No. 499) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of this Resolution), of the heads, officers and specialists of territorial state taxation inspectorates under the Ministry of Finance, who exercise the functions related to their main activities;

9.3. the increase, up to 2 times, of the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients), established in Annex 2 of the 29 November 1991 resolution (No. 499) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of this Resolution), of the heads, officers and specialists of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance and of territorial customs, who exercise the functions related to their main activities;

9.4. the increase, up to 2.5 times, of the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients), established in Annex 2 of the 29 November 1991 resolution (No. 499) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of this Resolution), of the heads and specialists of the Inspection Department under the Ministry of Finance, who carry out inspections on the instructions of courts and establishments of law and order;

9.5. the increase, up to 2.5 times, of the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients), established in Annexes 2 and 8 of the 29 November 1991 resolution (No. 499) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of this Resolution, of the heads, officers, functionaries and specialists of the Taxation Police Department under the Ministry of the Interior, the Interrogation Department and its subdivisions under the Ministry of the Interior, the Office of the Inspector General of the Ministry of the Interior and the Special Investigation Service under the Ministry of the Interior;

9.6. the increase, up to 2 times, of the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients), established in Annexes 2 and 8 of the 29 November 1991 resolution (No. 499) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of this Resolution), of the heads and officers of the Organised Crime Investigation Service and its subdivisions of the Police Department, and the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients), established by the 16 March 1994 resolution (No. 175) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of this Resolution), of the heads and officers of the Department of Guarding the President of the Republic of Lithuania, Speaker of the Seimas, Prime Minister and Official Guests under the Ministry of the Interior.”

Item 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997 (wording of 13 October 1998) stipulated:

2. To permit the increase of up to 2.5 times of the established official remuneration, without exceeding the means allocated for remuneration for work, to:

2.1. the directors, deputy directors of the departments, heads of divisions of the central office of the Ministry of the Interior, Director and deputy directors of the Interrogation Department, Deputy Commissioners General of the Police Department, heads and deputy heads of structural subdivisions, heads of boards of structural subdivisions and their divisions, chiefs and deputy chiefs of police units, chiefs and deputy chiefs of town, town-territorial, town and district, district and transport police commissioner’s offices, heads of structural subdivisions of police services of the Police Department, the Commissioner General of the State Border Guard Police Department, his deputies, chiefs and deputy chiefs of state border guard police units, chiefs and deputy chiefs of outposts (border control services), chiefs and deputy chiefs of border control posts, chiefs of shifts of border control posts, chiefs of operational divisions of state border guard police units;

2.2. Head and deputy heads, heads and deputy heads of divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), heads of the groups (exercising the functions related to their main activities), heads of groups (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of territorial state taxation inspectorates, heads and deputy heads of divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities) of the State Taxation Inspectorate under the Ministry of Finance;

2.3. Director and deputy directors of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance, heads and deputy heads of its divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs-houses, chiefs of customs divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs posts, chiefs of subdivisions of customs posts, and chiefs of shifts of customs posts;

2.4. Director and deputy directors, the heads and deputy heads of divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities) of the Inspection Department under the Ministry of Finance;

2.5. deputies of the Auditor General, heads and deputy heads of divisions and the head of the Interrogation Division of the National Audit Office;

2.6. Head of the State Tobacco and Alcohol Control Service, heads and deputy heads of divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities) of the same service.”

3. The petitioner doubts whether Items 6, 7 and 7.1 of the Resolution are in compliance with Article 48, Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution and Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contracts.

Although the petitioner requests an investigation into the compliance of Item 7.1 of the Resolution with the Constitution and Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contracts, however, it is clear from the reasoning presented in the petition that the petitioner doubts as to the compliance of Item 7.2 but not of Item 7.1 of the Resolution with the Constitution and Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contracts.

It is also clear from the reasoning presented in the petition of the petitioner that the petitioner doubts as to the compliance of not entire Item 6 and not entire Item 7 with the Constitution and Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contracts but only to the extent of Item 6 of the Resolution that Item 9.3 of by the Government Resolution (No. 357) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 14 April 1997 (wording of 24 June 1997) was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it had been permitted increasing, up to 2 times, the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the heads, officers and specialists of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance and of territorial customs who exercise the functions related to their main activities, which had been established in Annex 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 499) “On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies” of 29 November 1991 (hereinafter also referred to as the impugned provisions of the Resolution), and only to the extent of Item 7.2 of the Resolution that Item 2.3 of the Government Resolution (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997 (wording of 13 October 1998) was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it had been permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the established official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the Director and deputy directors of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance, heads and deputy heads of its divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities, chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs-houses, chiefs of customs divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs posts, chiefs of subdivisions of customs posts, and chiefs of shifts of customs posts without exceeding the finances allocated for work remuneration (hereinafter also referred to as the impugned provisions of the Resolution).

In its ruling the petitioner points out that it requests an investigation into the compliance of the impugned provisions of the Resolution with Article 48 of the Constitution.

It is clear from the reasoning set forth in the petition of the petitioner that the petitioner doubts as to the compliance of the impugned provisions of the Resolution with not entire Article 48 of the Constitution but only with the provision of Paragraph 1 thereof that every person shall have the right to adequate compensation for work.

The petitioner points out in its ruling that it requests an investigation into the compliance of the impugned provisions of the Resolution with Article 131 of the Constitution.

It is clear from the reasoning of the petitioner that the petitioner doubts as to the compliance of the impugned provisions of the Resolution with not entire Article 131 of the Constitution but only with the provision of Paragraph 2 thereof that expenditures established by law may not be reduced as long as said laws are not amended.

Subsequent to the petition of the petitioner, the Constitutional Court will consider whether the impugned provisions of the Resolution are in compliance with the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution that every person shall have the right to adequate compensation for work, Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution, the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution that expenditures established by law may not be reduced as long as said laws are not amended, and Article 22 of the Law on Employment contract.

II

On the compliance of Items 6 and 7.2 of the Government Resolution (No. 942) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 27 August 1999 with the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution that every person shall have the right to adequate compensation for work.

1. In the context of the case at issue, the right of every person to adequate compensation for work as established in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, means, in general, that the remuneration for work of public servants, which is one of the main pre-conditions for realising their other legitimate interests, must be established by law and paid at the time fixed in the laws.

The right to adequate compensation for work guaranteed in the Constitution is directly related to the principle of the equality of all persons before the law, the court, and other state institutions. It is prohibited to diminish one’s remuneration for work on the basis of one’s sex, race, nationality, citizenship, political convictions, one’s attitude towards religion, and other circumstances not related to the professional characteristics of the employee, if the functions of work of the employee, the scope of his work etc. have not been changed.

2. It needs to be noted that the right to adequate compensation for work entrenched in the Constitution is inseparably linked with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, which includes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations as well. In the context of the case at issue, the constitutional principle of the protection of legitimate expectations means that in cases when a certain remuneration for work has been established for a person by means of legal acts, then this remuneration must be paid throughout the duration of the established time.

The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations is linked with the duty of all state institutions to observe the undertaken obligations. This principle also means the protection of the acquired rights, i.e. persons have the right to reasonably expect that the rights acquired under the valid legal acts will be retained for the established period of time and will be implemented in reality. In its ruling of 12 July 2001, the Constitutional Court held that under this principle, legal regulation may be amended only in pursuance with an earlier established procedure and without violating the principles and norms of the Constitution, and that it is necessary, inter alia, to follow the principle lex retro non agit, and that it is impermissible to deny legitimate interests and legitimate expectations of persons.

It needs to be noted that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations does not mean that the remuneration for work paid to public servants from the finances of the state budget and those of municipal budgets may not be reduced, however, this may be done only in exceptional cases and only if it is necessary to protect the values entrenched in the Constitution. Bet even in such exceptional cases the remuneration for work may not be reduced in violation of the balance established in the Constitution between the interests of the person and those of the society. It also needs to be noted that the remuneration for work may not be reduced only to certain categories of employees who are compensated for their work from the finances of the state budget and municipal budgets. The principle of legitimate expectations also means that reduction of remuneration for work must be in line with the constitutional principle of proportionality.

3. In the course of the consideration of the conformity of the impugned provisions of the Resolution with the Constitution, one must ascertain how the procedure of compensation for work of customs officers was regulated at the time of the adoption of the Resolution.

At the time of the adoption of the Resolution, the Statute of Service in the Customs of the Republic of Lithuania was in force, which was approved by the 11 June 1996 Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Approving the Statute of Service in the Customs of the Republic of Lithuania (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1996, No. 64-1499). It was provided in Article 63 of the Statute that the positional (official) salary, extra pays for the service rank, those for the years of service and other payments established by law shall constitute the remuneration for work of the officers, while Article 64 thereof stipulated that the procedure of establishing and the sizes of the positional (official) salary and material incentive of the officers shall be established by law and governmental resolutions.

The procedure of compensation for work of customs officers was established by the Government Resolution (No. 499) “On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies” of 29 November 1991.

4. By means of Item 9.3 of the Government Resolution (No. 357) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 14 April 1997, it had been permitted to increase, up to 2 times, the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the customs officers, chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs-houses, chiefs and deputy chiefs of their divisions, chiefs of posts and shifts, chief customs inspectors, senior customs inspectors and customs inspectors of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance, which had been established in Annex 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 499) “On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies” of 29 November 1991. Item 14 of the same resolution provided that the established changes in the conditions of compensation for work shall be applied as of 1 May 1997 and the changes shall be implemented without exceeding the finances allocated for the remuneration for work in 1997. After Item 9.3 of the aforesaid Government Resolution of 14 April 1997 had been amended by Item 4.2 of the Government Resolution (No. 665) “On a Partial Amendment of Certain Resolutions of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania Dealing with Issues of the Remuneration for Work of the Employees of the Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 24 June 1997, it was permitted to increase, up to 2 times, the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the heads, officers and specialists of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance and of territorial customs who exercise the functions related to their main activities, which had been established in Annex 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 499) “On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies” of 29 November 1991.

By means of Item 2.3 of the Government Resolution (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997, it had been permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the established official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the Director and deputy directors of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance, heads and deputy heads of its divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs-houses, and chiefs of shifts of customs posts. Item 3.1 of the same resolution provided that in case of failure to accumulate enough finances, the official remuneration for the persons listed in Item 2.3 of that resolution were permitted to be increased at later months, however, no later than as of 1 September 1997. Decisions on the increase of the official remuneration had to be adopted by the heads of respective institutions. After Item 2.3 of the Government Resolution of 30 June 1997 had been changed by Item 1.2 of the Government Resolution (No. 1438) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 19 December 1997, it was permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the established official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of chiefs of customs divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), and chiefs of subdivisions of customs posts. After the first paragraph of Item 2 of the Government Resolution of 30 June 1997 had been changed by Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 1227) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 13 October 1998, it was provided to permit the increase of up to 2.5 times of the established official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) without exceeding the finances allocated for work remuneration.

5. The formula “to permit the increase” as employed in the Government Resolution (No. 357) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 14 April 1997 and in the Government Resolution (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997 means that the head of a corresponding state institution was granted the right to increase the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the employees of that state institution without exceeding the funds provided for in the fund of the remuneration for work provided in the law on the approval of financial indicators of the state budget and municipal budgets for a particular year. It needs to be noted that a mere permission to increase the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) did not mean that a guarantee was established for the employees that their official remuneration would be increased. In themselves the aforementioned governmental resolutions did not establish bigger coefficients of the official remuneration, nor did they guarantee of their own accord that such bigger salary coefficients would be established. The legitimate expectations might only appear subsequent to these governmental resolutions when the head of a corresponding state institution adopted a decision on the basis of the aforesaid governmental resolutions, by which he increased the official salary coefficient for particular persons.

6. After the head of a corresponding state institution had adopted a decision on increasing the official salary coefficient for particular persons, particular expectations appeared for the said persons under which the salaries under the increased coefficients for these persons were to be paid for a certain time period, which the state had undertaken to pay.

The remuneration for work of customs officers is paid from the finances of the state budget. The finances allocated for payment of the remuneration for work are provided for in the law on the approval of financial indicators of the state budget and municipal budgets for a particular year. Taking account of the fact that under said government resolution No. 357 of 14 April 1997 and said government resolution No. 689 of 30 June 1997 the increase of the salaries (expressed in coefficients) was linked with the finances of the fund of remuneration for work which is established in every budgetary year, the conclusion should be drawn that the officers to whom at the beginning of a particular year the increased official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) were established, had the right to the legitimate expectation that such official remuneration would be paid to them until the end of the budgetary year.

7. By means of its Resolution, the Government recognised Item 9.3 of the Government Resolution (No. 357) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 14 April 1997 whereby it had been permitted to increase up to 2 times the official remuneration of certain customs officers, and Item 2.3 the Government Resolution (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997 whereby it had been permitted to increase up to 2.5 times the official remuneration of certain customs officers as no longer valid. It meant that the heads of corresponding customs-houses lost their right to increase the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) after the Resolution had gone into effect. The Resolution abolishing the right to increase the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) did not mean that the said Resolution reduced the formerly established official remuneration for particular persons under the increased coefficients. Thus, the Resolution did not create a legal basis to change the formerly increased official salary coefficients in the same budgetary year when the Resolution was adopted.

8. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that Item 6 of the Government Resolution (No. 942) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 27 August 1999 whereby Item 9.3 of the Government Resolution (No. 357) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 14 April 1997 (wording of 24 June 1997) was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it had been permitted to increase, up to 2 times, the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the heads, officers and specialists of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance and of territorial customs who exercise the functions related to their main activities, which had been established in Annex 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 499) “On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies” of 29 November 1991, and Item 7.2 of the Resolution whereby Item 2.3 of the Government Resolution (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997 (wording of 13 October 1998) was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it had been permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the established official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the Director and deputy directors of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance, heads and deputy heads of its divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs-houses, chiefs of customs divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs posts, chiefs of subdivisions of customs posts, and chiefs of shifts of customs posts without exceeding the finances allocated for work remuneration are in compliance with the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution that every person shall have the right to adequate compensation for work.

III

On the compliance of Items 6 and 7.2 of the Government Resolution (No. 942) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 27 August 1999 with the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution that expenditures established by law may not be reduced as long as said laws are not amended.

1. Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution provides that expenditures established by law may not be reduced as long as said laws are not amended.

2. As it has been mentioned, from the moment of the Resolution’s entry into force, the heads of customs-houses lost their right to increase the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients). By means of the Resolution, the finances allocated for remuneration for work approved by the 3 December 1998 Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 1999 State Budget and Municipal Budgets were not diminished. Thus, the impugned provisions of the Resolution regulate different relations, they are not directly related to the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution that expenditures established by law may not be reduced as long as said laws are not amended.

3. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that Item 6 of the Government Resolution (No. 942) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 27 August 1999 whereby Item 9.3 of the Government Resolution (No. 357) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 14 April 1997 (wording of 24 June 1997) was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it had been permitted to increase, up to 2 times, the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the heads, officers and specialists of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance and of territorial customs who exercise the functions related to their main activities, which had been established in Annex 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 499) “On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies” of 29 November 1991, and Item 7.2 of the Resolution whereby Item 2.3 of the Government Resolution (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997 (wording of 13 October 1998) was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it had been permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the established official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the Director and deputy directors of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance, heads and deputy heads of its divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs-houses, chiefs of customs divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs posts, chiefs of subdivisions of customs posts, and chiefs of shifts of customs posts without exceeding the finances allocated for work remuneration are in compliance with the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution that expenditures established by law may not be reduced as long as said laws are not amended.

IV

On the compliance of Items 6 and 7.2 of the Government Resolution (No. 942) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 27 August 1999 with Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution.

1. Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution provides that the Government shall implement laws and resolutions of the Seimas concerning the implementation of laws, as well as the decrees of the President of the Republic.

The petitioner doubts whether the impugned provisions of the Resolution are in compliance with Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution, as the Resolution was adopted without making any reference to laws.

2. The norm entrenched in Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution means that the Government, while adopting legal acts, must follow the valid laws and, while enforcing certain laws, it may not violate other laws. The legal acts adopted by the Government may not contain any legal norms providing for a different legal regulation than established in the laws, or any norms competing with those of laws.

The duty of the Government to adopt substatutory acts which are necessary so as to implement laws stems directly from the Constitution, while in case of a commissioning by the Seimas to do so, it also stems from the laws and Seimas resolutions concerning implementation of laws (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 30 October 2001). It needs to be noted that in its substatutory legal acts the Government does not have to make reference to particular laws, Seimas resolutions or decrees of the President of the Republic, which are being followed by the Government when it adopts a corresponding substatutory legal act. It is important that the Government adopt substatutory legal acts without exceeding its powers, and that these substatutory acts be in conformity with the Constitution and laws.

3. The powers of the Government concerning the establishment of the official remuneration for customs officers were entrenched in the Statute of the Service in the Customs of the Republic of Lithuania Article 64 whereof stipulated that the procedure of establishing and the sizes of the positional (official) salary and material incentive of the officers shall be established by law and governmental resolution. Thus, under the Statute, the Government was entitled to establish the official remuneration of customs officers.

4. As already held in this ruling, by means of the Resolution the finances allocated for remuneration for work approved by the Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 1999 State Budget and Municipal Budgets were not diminished. The Government, while recognising, by means of its Resolution, Item 9.3 of the Government Resolution (No. 357) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 14 April 1997 whereby it had been permitted to increase, up to 2 times, the official remuneration of certain customs officers, and Item 2.3 of the Government Resolution (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997 whereby it had been permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the official remuneration of certain customs officers as no longer valid, did not exceed its constitutional powers.

5. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that Item 6 of Resolution No. 942 “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 27 August 1999 whereby Item 9.3 of the Government Resolution (No. 357) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 14 April 1997 (wording of 24 June 1997) was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it had been permitted to increase, up to 2 times, the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the heads, officers and specialists of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance and of territorial customs who exercise the functions related to their main activities, which had been established in Annex 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 499) “On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies” of 29 November 1991, and Item 7.2 of the Resolution whereby Item 2.3 of the Government Resolution (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997 (wording of 13 October 1998) was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it had been permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the established official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the Director and deputy directors of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance, heads and deputy heads of its divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs-houses, chiefs of customs divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs posts, chiefs of subdivisions of customs posts, and chiefs of shifts of customs posts without exceeding the finances allocated for work remuneration are in compliance with Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution.

V

On the compliance of Items 6 and 7.2 of the Government Resolution (No. 942) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 27 August 1999 with Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contracts.

1. Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contracts provides:

An employer has the right to change an employee’s working conditions (to change the working place within the same enterprise and locality, or to assign work with another machinery or device), or to change other conditions (benefits, the work regime, the amount of material liability, posts, etc.), only when this change is related to changes in production or technology, or when the organisation of labour is being changed and the employer has to change the working conditions of certain employees as a result.

The employee must be given notice of the planned changes in working conditions no later than one month prior to the introduction of such changes. If the changes are related to production technology, the employer must provide conditions for the employees to improve their qualifications or change their specialisation so that they will be able to work after the changes in production or production technology are introduced. The collective agreement may require a longer notice period, as well as additional obligations for the provision of conditions which would enable the employee to prepare for work after the introduction of changes in production or production technology.

If an employee refuses to work under changed working conditions, he or she may be discharged from work in the manner established in Paragraph 9 of Article 26 of this Law.

If changes are introduced and as a consequence an employee's salary is reduced for reasons beyond his or her control, the employee shall be compensated for the disparity in wages for at least three months after the introduction of the changes in working conditions.”

2. It was established in Paragraph 8 of Article 2 of the Law on Public Service enacted on 8 July 1999 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130) that customs officers are statutory public servants whose status is defined by separate law or statute. It was established in Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law on Public Service that this law, without exception, shall be applicable to civil servants, except statutory civil servants, to whom this law shall be applicable in so far as their status is not regulated by other laws and statutes. It was established in Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Law on Public Service that labour laws and other legal acts regulating employment relations and social guarantees shall apply to civil servants in so far as they do not contravene this law, and other laws and statutes regulating their status.

3. It was established in Article 64 of the Statute of Service in the Customs of the Republic of Lithuania that the procedure of establishing and the sizes of the positional (official) salary and material incentive of the officers shall be established by law and governmental resolution. The remuneration for work of customs officers was established by the Government Resolution (No. 499) “On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies” of 29 November 1991.

4. It needs to be noted that the finances allocated for payment of remuneration for work are provided in the law on the approval of financial indicators of the state budget and municipal budgets for a particular year. Until 1 October 2001, the procedure of the establishment and the sizes of remuneration for work for public servants used to be established by governmental resolutions. Thus, the provisions of Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contracts are not applicable to customs officers.

5. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that Item 6 of the Government Resolution (No. 942) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 27 August 1999 whereby Item 9.3 of the Government Resolution (No. 357) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 14 April 1997 (wording of 24 June 1997) was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it had been permitted to increase, up to 2 times, the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the heads, officers and specialists of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance and of territorial customs who exercise the functions related to their main activities, which had been established in Annex 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 499) “On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies” of 29 November 1991, and Item 7.2 of the Resolution whereby Item 2.3 of the Government Resolution (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997 (wording of 13 October 1998) was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it had been permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the established official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the Director and deputy directors of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance, heads and deputy heads of its divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs-houses, chiefs of customs divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs posts, chiefs of subdivisions of customs posts, and chiefs of shifts of customs posts without exceeding the finances allocated for work remuneration are in compliance with Article 22 of the Law on Employment Contracts.

Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania gives the following

ruling:

To recognise that Item 6 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 942) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 27 August 1999 whereby Item 9.3 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 357) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 14 April 1997 (wording of 24 June 1997) was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it had been permitted to increase, up to 2 times, the official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the heads, officers and specialists of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania and of territorial customs who exercise the functions related to their main activities, which had been established in Annex 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 499) “On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies” of 29 November 1991, and Item 7.2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 942) “On a Partial Amendment of the Conditions of the Work Pay for Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 27 August 1999 whereby Item 2.3 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997 (wording of 13 October 1998) was recognised as no longer valid, while under the latter item it had been permitted to increase, up to 2.5 times, the established official remuneration (expressed in coefficients) of the Director and deputy directors of the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania, heads and deputy heads of its divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs-houses, chiefs of customs divisions (exercising the functions related to their main activities), chiefs and deputy chiefs of customs posts, chiefs of subdivisions of customs posts, and chiefs of shifts of customs posts without exceeding the finances allocated for work remuneration are in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 22 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Employment Contracts.

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

The ruling is pronounced in the name of the Republic of Lithuania.

Justices of the Constitutional Court:

 

Egidijus Jarašiūnas     Egidijus Kūris     Zigmas Levickis

 

Augustinas Normantas     Vladas Pavilonis     Jonas Prapiestis

 

Vytautas Sinkevičius     Teodora Staugaitienė