Lt

On the state pensions of officials and servicemen

Case No. 46/2001-48/2001-50/2001-2/2002-6/2002-18/2002

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

RULING

ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 11 (WORDING OF 21 DECEMBER 2000) AND PARAGRAPH 3 OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON THE STATE PENSIONS OF OFFICIALS AND SERVICEMEN OF THE INTERIOR, THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION SERVICE, STATE SECURITY, NATIONAL DEFENCE, THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF PRISONS AND OF THE ESTABLISHMENTS AND STATE ENTERPRISES WHICH ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE LATTER WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, ALSO ON THE COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 2 OF ITEM 25 (WORDING OF 25 MAY 2001) OF THE REGULATIONS FOR THE GRANTING AND PAYMENT OF STATE PENSIONS OF OFFICIALS AND SERVICEMEN OF THE INTERIOR, THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION SERVICE, STATE SECURITY, NATIONAL DEFENCE, THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF PRISONS AND OF THE ESTABLISHMENTS AND STATE ENTERPRISES WHICH ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE LATTER AS APPROVED BY THE 20 JANUARY 1995 RESOLUTION (NO. 83) OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND ON THE COMPLIANCE OF ITEM 5 OF THE SAID REGULATIONS WITH PARAGRAPH 4 OF ARTICLE 16 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON THE STATE PENSIONS OF OFFICIALS AND SERVICEMEN OF THE INTERIOR, THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION SERVICE, STATE SECURITY, NATIONAL DEFENCE, THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF PRISONS AND OF THE ESTABLISHMENTS AND STATE ENTERPRISES WHICH ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE LATTER

4 July 2003
Vilnius

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius, Egidijus Jarašiūnas, Egidijus Kūris, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Augustinas Normantas, Jonas Prapiestis, Vytautas Sinkevičius, and Stasys Stačiokas

The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė

Jadvyga Andriuškevičiūtė, a senior consultant to the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas, acting as the representative of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, a party concerned

Irina Kudrevičiūtė, Head of the Law Application Department of the Legal Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, Svetlana Černuševič, Head of the Pensions Division of the Department of Social Insurance and Pensions of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania, and Arūnas Sodonis, Assistant Head of the Law Application Department of the Legal Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, acting as the representatives of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, a party concerned

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, on 12 June 2003, in its public hearing, considered case No. 46/2001-48/2001-50/2001-2/2002-6/2002-18/2002 subsequent to these petitions:

1) the petition of 18 September 2001 of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Article 11 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter was not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law proclaimed in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, whether Item 25 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter as approved by the 20 January 1995 resolution (No. 83) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania was not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law proclaimed in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

2) the petition of 9 October 2001 of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the first sentence of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter was not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law proclaimed in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Paragraph 1 of Article 23 and Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

3) the petition of 31 October 2001 of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter to the extent which establishes that the payment of the pension shall be no longer paid for a person who is no longer employed in these institution, and who is convicted for an intentional crime is not in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

4) the petition of 13 November 2001 of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter that granted state pension of officials and servicemen is no longer paid to the persons who are convicted for commission of intentional crimes is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

5) the petition of 4 December 2001 of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the provision “retired officials and servicemen who, after granting state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance (hereinafter in this Article referred to as insured income), shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” established in Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter was not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

6) the petition of 26 July 2002 of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Item 5 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 was not in conflict with Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter.

By the Constitutional Court’s decision of 23 October 2002, these petitions of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania have been joined into one case.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, suspended the investigation of an administrative case by its 18 September 2001 ruling and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether Article 11 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter (hereinafter also referred to as the Law; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 99-1958) was not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law proclaimed in the Preamble of the Constitution, as well as with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, whether Item 25 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter as approved by government resolution No. 83 of 20 January 1995 (hereinafter also referred to as the Regulations; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1995, No. 8-173) was not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law proclaimed in the Preamble of the Constitution, as well as with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution.

2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, suspended the investigation of an administrative case by its 9 October 2001 ruling and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether the first sentence of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law was not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law proclaimed in the Preamble of the Constitution, as well as Paragraph 1 of Article 23 and Article 52 of the Constitution.

3. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, suspended the investigation of an administrative case by its 31 October 2001 ruling and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law to the extent which establishes that the payment of a pension shall be no longer paid for a person who is no longer employed in these institution and who is convicted for an intentional crime, is not in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution.

4. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, suspended the investigation of an administrative case by its 13 November 2001 ruling and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law that granted state pension of officials and servicemen is no longer paid to the persons who are convicted for commission of intentional crimes is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution.

5. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, suspended the investigation of an administrative case by its 4 December 2001 ruling and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether the provision “retired officials and servicemen who, after designation of state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance (hereinafter in this Article referred to as insured income), shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” established in Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law was not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

6. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, suspended the investigation of an administrative case by its 26 July 2002 ruling and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether “Item 5 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 83) ‘On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service’ of 20 January 1995 was not in conflict with Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter (13 December 1994. No. I-693)”.

II

The petitions of the petitioners are based on the following arguments.

1. The 18 September 2001 ruling of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court states that the legal regulation established by the Law, according to which an official retired before the entry into force of the Law must choose either to refuse the pension or the work, limits the freedom of an individual to choose work or business and violates the right of the citizens to receive the pension guaranteed by the state, and is in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law.

2. The 9 October 2001 ruling of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court states that the legal regulation established by the Law, according to which the paid pension was reduced down to 30 percent of its former size to officials who had retired before the entry into force of the Law, violates the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law, the right to property and the duty of the state to ensure the most favourable regime of implementation of the right of ownership, to defend and protect ownership against illegal encroaching upon it and the right of the citizens to receive the pension guaranteed by the state.

3. The 31 October 2001 ruling of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court states that the pension of the official is granted in case of certain interconnection of facts: (1) specific service related to unfixed working hours, increased risk of injury or death, etc.; (2) work record of the established length. In the opinion of the petitioner, not granting the pension of the official when an intentional crime is committed by an official in service is justifiable (the name of the official is discredited). However, the petitioner doubts as to the termination of payment of the granted pension to the official after his retirement (upon termination of work relations) because the interconnection of juridical facts, which served as the grounds for granting the pension, persists. The petitioner notes that, according to Paragraph 2 of Article 13, the pension of the official is usually granted for the rest of his life, therefore, the right to permanent income from this pension should be regarded as property. Article 23 of the Constitution stipulates the principles of inviolability and legal protection of ownership, thus, the court had doubts if Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law to the extent establishing that the payment of the pension shall be no longer paid for a person who is convicted for an intentional crime is not in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution.

4. The 13 November 2001 ruling of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court maintains that the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law, according to which the payment of the state pension of officials and servicemen shall be discontinued to persons who have been convicted for commission of intentional crimes, creates legal effects (termination of the payment of the pension) to the persons who had been granted the state pensions of officials and servicemen before the entry into force of the Law on 1 January 1995 and who had committed intentional crimes before that date, i.e. to the persons who were not aware of the said provision of the Law before granting the pension and the commission of an intentional crime. The petitioner doubts as to the compliance of the said provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law with the provision that the law has no retroactive power. It is also noted in the petition of the petitioner that the impugned provision of the Law that the payment of state pension of officials and servicemen shall be discontinued to persons who have been convicted for commission of intentional crimes is not related to the disappearance of previous record. Thus, according to the indication of conviction for intentional crimes, this provision of the Law creates an unequal status of persons convicted for commission of intentional crimes if compared to other persons who, under other laws of the Republic of Lithuania, are held not convicted upon disappearance or abolishment of previous record.

5. The 4 December 2001 ruling of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court maintains that the legislature related the amount of the paid state pension of the official with possession of certain income by the impugned provision of the Law. The court has doubts if a working person who is paid the pension of the official is not discriminated on the grounds of social status. Big reduction of the amount of the pension can cause a compulsory decision of the pensioner to refuse the job. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, each human being may freely choose a job and business. The petitioner has doubts if the impugned provision of the Law does not restrict the right of a working pensioner to freely choose a job and business, who is paid the state pension of the official, because of his social status. The petitioner also doubts if loosing of a part of the pension only on the grounds of the changed social status of the pensioner is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 29 of the Constitution.

6. The 26 July 2002 ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania notes that, under Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Law, the time periods specified in Items 1–6 of this Paragraph, which had been prior to the day of the entry into force of the Law (1 January 1995), are equalled to the time of service on the grounds of which pensions are granted to the persons working as officials or servicemen of the systems of the interior, state security, national defence, prosecutor’s office, the Special Investigation Service, the Department of Prisons and of the establishments and state enterprises which are subordinate to the latter. Thus, under the Law, specified time periods are included into the length of service of persons admitted to work as officials and servicemen irrespective of the fact whether they were admitted to service before or after the entry into force of the Law. Item 5 of the Regulations as approved by government resolution No. 83 of 20 January 1995 provides that the time period of service specified in Article 16 of the Law shall be included to officials and servicemen admitted to the service in the systems of the interior, state security, national defence, and prosecutor’s office before the day of the entry into force of the Law. In the opinion of the petitioner, the circle of persons, whose service record could include the time period specified in Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Law, is thus narrowed, therefore, the petitioner doubts if Item 5 of the Regulations is not in conflict with Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Law.

III

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were received from the representative of the party concerned—the Seimas—J. Andriuškevičiūtė, a senior consultant to the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas, and the representatives of the party concerned—the Government—S. Černuševič, Head of the Pensions Department of the Department of Social Insurance and Pensions of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, I. Kudrevičiūtė, Head of the Law Application Division of the Legal Department of the Ministry of the Interior, and A. Sodonis, Assistant Head of the Law Application Division the Legal Department of the Ministry of the Interior.

1. In the explanations of 29 November 2001, 14 January 2002, 28 May 2002, and 4 June 2003 of the representative of the party concerned—the Seimas—J. Andriuškevičiūtė it is maintained that the content of the rights of the owner is constituted by the right to possess, use, and dispose of his property. The state pension of officials and servicemen may be regarded as property only after it is granted and paid according to the procedure established by the laws. Before that the recipient of the pension may not be regarded as the owner of the pension. Only the sum of the payment (pension, benefit) which is established according to the law may be recognised as property of a person. The legal provisions which regulate the amount of the pension may not be regarded as ones violating the right of ownership. If the funds whose payment is not provided for by the law were recognised as property of an individual, the concept of the right of ownership would be denied in essence. The right to the state pension of officials and servicemen arises on the grounds of the law, therefore, in its essence, it differs from the pension which is paid on the basis of agreement or other insurance payments. The Law provides for certain conditions upon fulfilment of which persons acquire the right to the state pension of officials or servicemen, i.e. the state does not pay insurance payments to the accounts of insurance companies, funds dedicated to this purpose, or of concrete individuals. An individual acquires the property right to the state pension of officials or servicemen only upon its payment. It is not a property right from the point of view of civil law. In the opinion of J. Andriuškevičiūtė, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court also permits concluding that the pension may be reduced according to the procedure established by law. After recognition that the pension, though it is property, may be reduced, it is necessary to observe the constitutional requirement that “property may only be seized for the needs of society in accordance with the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for”, thus, it should be concluded that the pension is the property of a person from the moment when it is paid out in the amount provided for by the law. Some payments are allotted additionally under social insurance guarantees which are the same for all residents and are paid from the funds of the State Budget. State pensions of officials or servicemen belong to this group of payments. The purpose of the pension of officials or servicemen is to compensate the income which has been lost due to termination of service relationships. However, if an official or serviceman continues his service or works, he possesses the income and, thus, the state should not be obligated to provide him with social assistance. The petitioner emphasised the limitation on the amount of the pension related only with the remuneration for the job. Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law also provides for a limitation on the amount of the pension of officials or servicemen who have retired from service and who receive sickness, maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance after granting state pensions for service of the officials or servicemen or state disability pensions of officials or servicemen. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Law, state pensions are not paid to the officials and servicemen who are in service. This provision in its essence does not differ from the rules established in Paragraph 2 of Article 11 as it must indirectly be related to the income. Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution is understood as the right of a person to decide himself whether to work or not, whether to engage in business or not. Legal acts establish certain requirements to a person who wishes to work and they may not be regarded as limiting the right of the person to freely choose a job and business. An analogous assessment should be given to the provisions of the Law limiting the amount of the pension according to the insured income received. While assessing the impugned provisions of the law and the substatutory act, attention should be paid to the fact that the rules on the payment of pensions for the officials and servicemen permit a person to choose whether to remain in service, or to receive the pension, but they do not allow him to work and to receive the pension. Constitutional provisions permit maintaining that the opportunity of the free choice of a human being is not unlimited. An analysis of provisions of the Constitution gives the grounds to maintain that the provisions of the Constitution which consolidate the right of a human being to work, pension and social assistance do not attempt to guarantee absolute rights to a person, however, they consolidate the guarantee that the state will not deny these rights. According to the representative of the Seimas, the provisions of Article 11 of the Law and Item 25 of the Regulations safeguard “the interest of society”. The state has the right to establish additional special conditions for the implementation of this right, but the extent of these limitations should not deny the limited rights in general.

The representative of the party concerned notes that the legislature is empowered to establish which persons shall not be granted pensions, while the state has established guarantees for the implementation of these rights by law. In the opinion of the representative of the Seimas, the limitation on the amount of pensions established in Article 11 of the Law and Item 25 of the Regulations or not payment of these pensions in cases specified in this article is not in conflict with Article 52 of the Constitution.

In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, the impugned provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law does not violate the protection of the right of ownership consolidated in Article 23 of the Constitution, because the state pension of officials or servicemen may be considered property only after it is granted and paid according to the procedure established by the laws. In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, the impugned provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law is not in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution, because the legal status of officials or servicemen both on and off duty is special, while liability is applied for the behaviour discrediting the name of the official or soldier on as well as off duty. According to the representative of the party concerned J. Andriuškevičiūtė, the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution would be violated if the granting and payment of pensions of officials or servicemen depended on the time of commission of an intentional criminal deed, i.e. whether the crime was committed while on service or after retirement.

2. In the explanations of the representative of the party concerned—the Government—S. Černuševič it is maintained that issues related to the right of a human being to freely choose a job are the object of regulation of labour law, but not of the law on pensions. In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, the impugned provisions of Article 11 of the Law and Item 25 of the Regulations are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution. All state pensions including those of officials and servicemen are of different kind than social insurance pensions which are based on the principles of social insurance, and the granting and payment of pensions of this kind are established by different laws. Payment of state pensions from the funds of the State Budget depends on the capabilities of the state to render state support to persons who have not yet reached the age of the old age pension or have not been recognised handicapped, therefore, the legislature, taking account of real financial opportunities, has the right to establish the manner of payment of the state pensions of officials and servicemen to working recipients of these pensions. The impugned provisions of Item 25 of the Regulations only specify the implementation of the norm of the Law, therefore, is not in conflict with Article 52 of the Constitution. In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, only the received pension should be regarded as property, therefore, the impugned provisions of the Law are not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law consolidated in the Constitution.

3. In the explanations of the representative of the party concerned—the Government—I. Kudrevičiūtė it is maintained that the limitation on the rights to work, pensions and social assistance in cases established by the law may not be considered an essential denial of these rights, because these rights are not absolute legal categories. The rights to work, pensions and social assistance are not completely independent from the state and, taking account of economic and social level of the state, they may be subject to limitation or not granted. The impugned provisions of Article 11 of the Law and Item 25 of the Regulations guarantee the interests of society. The state is obligated to support only members belonging to certain category, not all members of the society, and the ensuring of this interest is really substantiated and lawful. In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, the impugned provisions of Article 11 of the Law and Item 25 of the Regulations do not violate the Constitution.

4. In the explanations of the representative of the party concerned—the Government—A. Sodonis it is maintained that the legislature has established a general rule that only the service to the State of Lithuania shall be included in the time of service that is required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen. The representative of the Government notes that before the entry into force of the Law, the relationships of state pensions of officials and servicemen were regulated by the Government Resolution (No. 281) “On the Procedure of Pension Maintenance of the Employees, Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Department of the Security of the Supreme Council” of 17 July 1991. While applying this resolution, the time of service in corresponding services of the USSR and its republics was also included into the time of service. In order to protect the legitimate expectations of officials and servicemen who continued or began their service as of the restoration of the independence of Lithuania prior to 1 January 1995, the legislature established an exception to the said general rule in Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Law, i.e. that the time of service of these officials and servicemen in corresponding services of other states shall be equalled to the time of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen. Therefore, in the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Law should be applied only to the officials and servicemen who started their service before the Law came into force. Thus, Item 5 of the Regulations is not in conflict with Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Law.

IV

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were received from L. Linkevičius, Minister of the National Defence of the Republic of Lithuania, V. Blinkevičiūtė, Minister of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania, J. Bernatonis, the then Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, V. Bulovas, Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, G. Švedas, Vice-minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, P. Koverovas, State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, A. Klimavičius, Prosecutor General of the Republic of Lithuania, M. Laurinkus, Director General of the State Security Department, A. Pocius, Deputy Director General of the said department, V. Junokas, Director of the Special Investigation Service, D. Prevelis, the then Director of the Board of the State Social Insurance Fund, Č. Zabulėnienė, acting Director of the Board of the State Social Insurance Fund, D. Žalimas, a consultant of the Minister of National Defence of the Republic of Lithuania.

V

At the Constitutional Court hearing the representatives of the parties concerned—the Seimas and the Government—virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in the written explanations.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. On 13 December 1994 the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office. This law came into force on 1 January 1995.

This law has been amended and/or supplemented more than once. The title of the Law was supplemented by words “Special Investigation Service” by Article 1 of the 2 May 2002 Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Supplement and Amendment of the Title, Articles 1, 3, 6, 12, and 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office. The title of the Law was once again supplemented by Article 1 of the 13 July 2002 Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Supplement and Amendment of the Title, Articles 1, 3, 6, 12, and 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office and set forth as follows: “The Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter”.

2. The Law the provisions of which are impugned, regulates the relationships of the granting and payment of the state pensions of officials and servicemen of the interior, the Special Investigation Service, state security, national defence, prosecutor’s office, the Department of Prisons and of the establishment and state enterprises which are subordinate to the latter.

Under the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on State Pensions, the state pension of officials and servicemen is one of the types of state pensions. Apart from this state pension, the Law on State Pensions establishes the state pension of the President of the Republic, state pensions of the first and second degree of the Republic of Lithuania, state pensions of victims, scientists, and judges. According to the Law on State Pensions, some of the pensions established therein are granted and paid for special merits to Lithuania (for example, state pensions of the first and second degree of the Republic of Lithuania). The granting and payment of other state pensions is related to the corresponding service (for example, service in the systems of the Interior, prosecutor’s office, etc.) or work (for example, scientific work), some other state pensions are of compensational nature and are paid to persons who have been recognised victims (for example, persons who became disabled because of the aggression carried out on 11–13 January 1991 and later events, participants of the resistance to the occupations of 1940–1990, etc.).

The relationships of the granting and payment of different types of state pensions are also regulated by the Law on the President of the Republic of Lithuania, the Law on the State Pensions of Judges of the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the State Pensions of Scientists.

The Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter establishes the persons who have the right to receive the state pension of officials and servicemen, the grounds for the granting and payment thereof, conditions, and amounts of this pension.

Under the Law, the following persons have the right to the state pension of officials and servicemen: officials of the Ministry of the Interior, the police, the State Border Security Service and other institutions of the Interior, officers of service units, servicemen and non-commissioned officers of re-enlistee service of the interior, officials of the Special Investigation Service, servicemen of professional military service, officials of the system of the State Security Department, officials of the prosecutor’s office, officials of the Department of Prisons and of the establishments and state enterprises which are subordinate to the latter. In case of death of these persons on duty or during the training for reasons related to the service or training, their spouses and children have the right to receive the state widows and orphans pensions of officials and servicemen.

The state pension of officials and servicemen is granted and paid to the said officials and servicemen upon their retirement if they meet the conditions established by the Law. Such conditions are of varied nature: the person has either served a certain number of years, or has served a certain number of years and reached the age of old age pension, or the person is recognised disabled for reasons related to the service, or has been dismissed from service because of health, etc.

Under the Law, the state pension of officials and servicemen is not granted and the granted one is no longer paid to individuals who are convicted for commission of intentional crimes.

The Law provides that the officials and servicemen who acquire the right to the state pension of officials and servicemen do not lose the right to other state pensions providing the laws do not provide otherwise. According to the valid laws, the said officials and servicemen also receive the state social insurance pension provided they meet the conditions required in order to receive these pensions.

It is noteworthy that the state pensions of officials and servicemen are paid from the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania. The pensions to the officials and servicemen and their families are granted and paid by the Ministry of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, the State Security Department, the Ministry of National Defence, the Office of the Prosecutor General or the Department of Prisons depending on which of these institutions the recipient of the pension served in last. Under the valid laws, the granting and payment of the state pension of officials and servicemen is based neither on contributions of social insurance, nor on any other special payments. The state pension of officials and servicemen is calculated and paid while taking account of the amount of remuneration of the official or serviceman. Meanwhile, the state social insurance old age pension and the state social insurance disability pension, which are established in the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on State Social Insurance Pensions, are paid from the budget of the State Social Insurance Fund of the Republic of Lithuania. The granting and payment of the state social insurance old age pension, unlike the state pensions (state pensions of officials and servicemen among them), are based on social insurance contributions which are paid by employers and employees themselves. Thus, in this case the individual himself participates to some extent in the creation of material preconditions for the payment of this pension. The amounts of social insurance contributions are the grounds for differentiation of amounts of state social insurance old age pensions. Amounts of social insurance disability pensions are not always directly related with the payment of social insurance contribution.

3. The petitioner—the Vilnius Administrative Regional Court:

a) by its ruling of 18 September 2001 requests an investigation into whether Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) is not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law which are consolidated in the Preamble of the Constitution, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution;

b) by its ruling of 9 October 2001 requests an investigation into whether the first sentence “retired officials and servicemen who, after designation of state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance <...> shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) is not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law which are consolidated in the Preamble of the Constitution, Paragraph 1 of Article 23 and Article 52 of the Constitution which consolidates the state guaranteed right of citizens to receive old age and disability pensions;

c) by its ruling of 4 December 2001 requests an investigation into whether the provision “retired officials and servicemen who, after designation of state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance, <...> shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

The petitioner—the Vilnius Administrative Regional Court:

a) by its ruling of 31 October 2001 requests an investigation into whether Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law to the extent establishing that the payment of the granted state pension of officials and servicemen is no longer paid to a person who is convicted for commission of an intentional crime is not in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution;

b) by its ruling of 13 November 2001 requests an investigation into whether the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law that the granted state pension of officials and servicemen is no longer paid to a person convicted for commission of an intentional crime is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution.

4. By its resolution No. 83 of 20 January 1995, the Government approved the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office. These regulations have been amended and/or supplemented more than once.

The title of these Regulations was amended by Item 1.4.1 of the Government Resolution (No. 861) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 83) ‘On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service’ of 20 January 1995” of 18 July 2000 and they were titled the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter.

The Vilnius Administrative Regional Court, the petitioner, by its ruling of 18 September 2001 requests an investigation into whether Item 25 of the Regulations is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48, Article 52 of the Constitution, and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, by its ruling of 26 July 2002 requests an investigation into whether Item 5 of the Regulations is not in conflict with Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Law.

5. Taking account of the specified object of investigation and arguments set forth in the petitions of the petitioners, the Vilnius Administrative Regional Court and the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court will not investigate the compliance of the whole legal regulation of the state pensions system or its separate elements with the Constitution except those aspects which the petitioners have specified in their petitions.

II

1. Article 52 of the Constitution provides: “The State shall guarantee the right of citizens to receive old age and disability pensions, as well as social assistance in the event of unemployment, sickness, widowhood, loss of breadwinner, and other cases provided for in laws.”

Article 52 of the Constitution establishes the grounds for pensionary maintenance and social assistance. According to this article of the Constitution, the legislature must establish by law the old age and disability pensions, as well as social assistance in the event of unemployment, sickness, widowhood, and loss of breadwinner.

Under the Constitution, other pensions or social assistance than those specified in Article 52 of the Constitution may be established by law (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 23 April 2002 and 25 November 2002). Pensions for certain service to the State of Lithuania may also be established by law. While establishing such a pension for service, the legislature is bound by the rules and principles of the Constitution, as well as the striving for an open, just and harmonious civil society and a state under the rule of law which is consolidated in its Preamble.

According to the Constitution, the grounds for pensionary maintenance, the persons who are granted and paid pensions, the conditions for the granting and payment of pensions, as well as the amounts of the pensions are established by law only. While adopting a law that establishes which persons are granted and paid pensions for service, the grounds and conditions for the granting and payment of these pensions, as well as the amounts of this pension, the legislature in every case must observe the rules and principles of the Constitution, and the imperatives of an open, just, harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law which are consolidated in the Constitution. It should be noted that if the legislature, while regulating the pensionary maintenance of officials and servicemen, did not observe the Constitution, such pensionary maintenance could not be guaranteed under the Constitution.

In the context of the case under consideration it must be noted that the legislature, while establishing which persons are granted and paid pensions for service, the grounds and conditions for the granting and payment of these pensions, as well as the amounts of this pension, is bound by the constitutional imperative of social harmony, the principles of justice, reasonableness and proportionality. If the legislature, while establishing the pension for service of officials and servicemen, did not take account of the specific character of the service of officials and servicemen, the nature of concrete duties and other important circumstances, the granting and payment of such a pension would become a privilege.

It should be noted that the legislature, while establishing the pension of officials and servicemen for service, may not establish the legal regulation, according to which the person would be able to retire unreasonably early, or an unreasonably short time period of service or work required in order to receive such pension would be established, or the amount of the remuneration of the official or serviceman would not be taken into consideration while establishing the amount of the granted pension, or the principles of justice, reasonableness and proportionality would be violated in some other way.

It must also be noted that the state pension of officials and servicemen differs in its nature and character from state social insurance pensions (thus, from the old age pension as well). It has been mentioned that this pension is granted to persons for their service to the State of Lithuania and is paid from the State Budget. The indicated peculiarities imply that the legislature is also empowered to establish the legal regulation under which this pension is not granted to persons who have not retired, or this pension is not paid to persons who have retired from service and have been granted and paid the state pension of officials and servicemen provided they return back to the service for which the state pension of officials and servicemen has been granted and paid.

The provision “the State shall guarantee” of Article 52 of the Constitution means, inter alia, that, upon establishing by law certain pensionary maintenance, the state is obligated to guarantee it to the indicated persons on the grounds and by the amounts which have been established by the law, while the persons who meet the conditions provided by the law, have the right to demand that the state grant and pay this pension to them. Thus, the said provision of Article 52 of the Constitution implies the duty of the legislature, when he establishes by law a certain pension, to consolidate such legal regulation which would ensure the payment of this pension to the persons who meet the conditions established by the law.

While establishing the legal regulation according to which the persons who meet the conditions provided by the law (retirement from the service, time of service, age, etc.) acquire the right to a certain pension for service established in the law, the state alongside accepts the duty to grant and pay this pension. The person who meets the conditions established by the law has the right to demand that the state fulfil the obligation undertaken by the law and pay the payments of the established amount. It was held in the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 10 February 2000 that if a law establishes another pension which is not directly provided by Article 52 of the Constitution, it must be guaranteed, under the Constitution, to indicated persons on such bases and by such amounts that are established by law. However, it should also be emphasised that the legislature, while establishing such a pension, is bound by the Constitution.

Alongside, it should be noted that there might occur such an extreme situation in the state (economic crisis, natural disaster etc.) when there is an objective lack of funds for the payment of pensions. In such extraordinary cases the legal regulation of pensionary relations may be corrected also by reducing pensions to the extent that it is necessary to ensure vitally important interests of society and protect other constitutional values. The reduced pensions may only be paid on a temporary basis, i.e. only when there is an extraordinary situation in the state (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 23 April 2002 and 25 November 2002). It needs to be noted that even in such extraordinary cases it is not permitted to reduce pensions in violation of the balance between the interests of the person and society; such reduction of pensions must be in line with the constitutional principle of proportionality.

2. The Constitution shall be an integral act (Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Constitution). The principles and norms of the Constitution compose a harmonious system. No provision of the Constitution may be construed so that the content of another constitutional provision would be distorted or denied, since, thus, the essence of the whole constitutional regulation would be distorted and the balance of values consolidated in the Constitution would be disturbed.

The provisions of Article 52 of the Constitution should be construed by taking account of other provisions of the Constitution, while in the context of the case at issue it must be done while taking into consideration of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the provisions of Articles 23, 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

3. The constitutional principle of the state under the rule of law is a universal principle upon which the whole legal system of Lithuania and the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania itself are based; the content of the principle of a state under the rule of law is revealed in various provisions of the Constitution and is construed inseparably from the striving for an open, just and harmonious civil society which is declared in the Preamble of the Constitution.

Alongside with other requirements, the principle of a state under the rule of law consolidated in the Constitution also implies that human rights and freedoms must be secured, that all institutions implementing state authority and other state institutions must act while observing the law and in compliance with the law, that the Constitution has the supreme legal power and that laws, government resolutions and other legal acts must be in conformity with the Constitution.

Inseparable elements of the principle of a state under the rule of law are the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and legal security. These principles imply, inter alia, that the state must fulfil the undertaken obligations to the person. If the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and legal security of the person were not ensured, the confidence of the person in the state and law would not be ensured (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 23 February 2000, 12 July 2001, 25 November 2002, 24 January 2003, and 4 March 2003). One of the essential elements of the constitutional principle of the state under the rule of law is the principle of legal security. This means the duty of the state to ensure certainty and stability of legal regulation, to safeguard the rights of participants of legal relations, as well as to respect legitimate interests and legitimate expectations (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 12 July 2001, 5 November 2002, 4 March 2003, and 17 March 2003).

It also needs to be noted that, according to the Constitution, only those expectations of the person in relationships with the state are protected and defended, which arise out of the Constitution itself or from the laws and other legal acts that are not in conflict with the Constitution. Only these expectations of the person in relationships with the state are considered legitimate.

One of the elements of the principle of legitimate expectations is the protection of rights which are acquired under the Constitution as well as laws and other legal acts which are not in conflict with the Constitution. It is noteworthy in the context of the case under consideration that persons who have acquired certain rights according to the law, have the right to reasonably expect that these rights will be maintained and implemented for the established time period. Under this principle, legal regulation may only be altered according to a previously established procedure. It needs to be noted that, while changing legal regulation, it is necessary to observe the norms and principles of the Constitution, and, inter alia, the principle lex retro non agit, and that the rights and legitimate expectations acquired by the person may not be denied by changes in legal regulation.

It should also be noted in the context of the case under consideration that after the types of pensions, the persons entitled to the pension, the bases of the granting and payment of pensions, their amounts, and the conditions have been established by law, a duty arises for the state to follow the constitutional principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty in the area of pensionary maintenance relations. Therefore, the amendments of the established legal regulation deteriorating the pensionary maintenance are possible only when there appears a special situation in the state and only when it is necessary to protect other constitutional values. This can be done by law only, without violating the Constitution (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 23 April 2002).

A person who meets the conditions established by the law acquires the right to a pension established by the law. This person may reasonably expect that this right will be protected and defended by the state. When the pension established by the law which is not in conflict with the Constitution is granted and paid, this right and legitimate expectation acquired by the person are also to be linked to the protection of the rights of ownership of this person.

Alongside, it needs to be noted that the constitutional protection of acquired rights and legitimate expectations does not mean that the system of pensionary maintenance established by law may not be reorganised. While reorganising this system, the Constitution must be observed in every case. The system of pensions may be reorganised only by law, only guaranteeing the old age and disability pensions provided for by the Constitution, as well as observing undertaken obligations by the state, which are not in conflict with Constitution, to pay corresponding payments to persons who meet the requirements established by the law. If, while reorganising the pensionary system, the pensions established by means of the laws which are not directly specified in Article 52 of the Constitution were eliminated, or the legal regulation of these pensions were amended in essence, the legislature would be obligated to establish a just mechanism for compensation of the existing losses to the persons who had been granted and paid such pensions.

In addition, it needs to be noted that the legislature, while reorganising the system of pensions so that the bases for pensionary maintenance, persons to whom the pension is granted and paid, the conditions of the granting and payment of pensions, the amounts of pensionary maintenance are changed, must provide for a sufficient transitional time period during which the persons who have a corresponding job or perform corresponding service which entitles them to a respective pension under the previous regulation, would be able to prepare for these changes.

4. Article 23 of the Constitution provides:

Property shall be inviolable.

The rights of ownership shall be protected by law.

Property may only be seized for the needs of society in accordance with the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for.”

While construing the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has held more than once that the inviolability of property and protection of the rights of ownership mean, inter alia, that the owner, as the holder of subjective rights to property, has the right to require that other persons not violate his rights, as well as that the state have a duty to ensure the defence and protection of the rights of ownership.

It needs to be noted in the context of the case under consideration that, upon establishment by law, that certain persons have the right to the state pension of officials and servicemen due to their job or service, though this pension is paid from the State Budget, a duty arises for the state to ensure that the persons who meet the requirements of the law receive monetary payments of the established amount after this pension is granted to them. It has been mentioned that the fact that the law establishes the state pension of officials and servicemen means that the state undertakes an obligation to pay monetary payments of the established amount to persons for their service to the State of Lithuania, if these persons meet the requirements established by law (retirement from service, service record, age, etc.). Thus, a person, who meets these conditions, is entitled to demand that the state fulfil this obligation of property nature.

It has been mentioned that the Constitution is an integral act, that its rules are interrelated and constitute a harmonious system. While revealing the content of the constitutional institution of the protection of the rights of ownership, one has to take account not only of Article 23 of the Constitution, but also of other provisions of the Constitution which reveal different aspects of this constitutional concept of this right: the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution that Lithuania’s economy shall be based on the right of private ownership and individual freedom of economic activity and initiative, Article 47 of the Constitution which provides, inter alia, that the rights of exclusive ownership of the subterranean, as well as internal waters, forests, parks, roads, archaeological and cultural objects of state importance shall belong to the Republic of Lithuania, also that in the Republic of Lithuania foreign entities may acquire the ownership of land, internal waters, forests, and parks subsequent to a constitutional law, and that plots of land may belong to a foreign state for the establishment of its diplomatic and consular missions, of the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 that each human being shall have the right to receive just pay for work and social security in the event of unemployment, the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 49 of the Constitution that each working human being shall have the right to annual paid holidays, the provision of Article 52 of the Constitution that the state shall guarantee the right of citizens to receive old age and disability pensions, as well as social assistance in the event of unemployment, sickness, widowhood, loss of breadwinner, and other cases provided for in laws, as well as of the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 42 of the Constitution that material interests of an author that are related to scientific, technical, cultural, and artistic work are protected and defended by law, etc. The constitutional concept of the protection of the rights of ownership is inseparable from the provision of Article 18 of the Constitution that human rights and freedoms are innate, from the principle of the equality of persons before the law, the court, and other state institutions and officials which is consolidated in Article 29 of the Constitution, from the right of the person whose constitutional rights or freedoms are violated to apply to court, and the provision that the law shall establish compensation for material and moral damage inflicted on a person which are consolidated in Article 30 of the Constitution, etc.

While relating the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution with the provisions of the aforementioned articles of the Constitution, one should state that the constitutional protection of the rights of ownership, which arise out of the Constitution and the laws that are not in conflict with the Constitution, means the protection of the right to demand the fulfilment of obligation of property nature to a person. For instance, the requirements of a person to pay just remuneration for work are defended not only under Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, but also under the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution that the rights of ownership shall be protected by law, while the requirements of a person to pay the payments of pensionary maintenance established by law are defended not only under Article 52 of the Constitution, but also under Article 23 of the Constitution. It needs to be noted that in the latter case the right to demand for the payments of pensionary maintenance which are established by the Constitution or laws that are not in conflict with the latter, also arises out of Article 52 of the Constitution, while under Article 23 of the Constitution the property aspects of this right are defended. The said circumstance determines the specific character of the defence of this acquired right according to Article 23 of the Constitution. This specific character means, inter alia, that in case a question arises as to the defence of the acquired right under Article 23 of the Constitution, first of all it should be established whether the requirement to pay the pension is based on Article 52 of the Constitution and/or other norms of the Constitution.

In the context of the case under consideration it needs to be noted that the state has the duty to fulfil those obligations of property nature which it has undertaken by law while establishing such regulation, according to which a person, who meets the conditions established by the law, acquires the right to the state pension of officials and servicemen. Under the Law, only the persons specified in the Law have the right to receive the state pension of officials and servicemen. This pension is granted and paid to the persons retired from service if they have served a certain number of years or have served a certain number of years and reached the age for the old age pension, or have been recognised disabled for reasons related to the service, or have been dismissed from service for the reasons of health, etc. The duty of the state to pay the state pension of officials and servicemen arises out of the obligation of the state, which is consolidated in the Law, to pay the state pension of granted amount to a person who meets the conditions established in the Law.

Thus, under Article 23 of the Constitution, the persons who have been granted and paid the state pensions of officials and servicemen have the right to demand that the payments be paid further in the amounts which were granted and paid earlier. It needs to be noted that the pensions granted and paid under the Constitution may be reduced only in the event of an extraordinary situation in the state when there is objective insufficiency of funds that are necessary to pay the pensions. In this case the granted and paid pensions may be reduced to the extent necessary to ensure vitally important interests of society, and to protect other constitutional values. It is also noteworthy that the reduced pensions may only be paid temporarily. In addition, while implementing the reform of the pensionary system, some pensions may be abolished, the amounts of others may be reduced. In this case the legislature must establish a just mechanism of compensations for persons that have suffered some losses because of this amendment of the regulation. Otherwise, the legal regulation, according to which the payment of the granted and paid state pension of officials and servicemen is no longer paid or reduced, should be judged to be in violation of Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution which provides that the rights of ownership shall be protected by law.

It needs to be noted that the right of ownership is defended by international legal acts as well. While guaranteeing some other rights and freedoms in addition to those that are established therein, Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter also referred to as the First Protocol) provides that every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, and that no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. Paragraph 2 of this article provides that the preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

In the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights the defence of the right of every natural and legal person to dispose of his property as established in Article 1 of the First Protocol is applied not only to the objects of the right of ownership which are expressis verbis specified by civil laws of states, but also to economic interests (European Court of Human Rights, case Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v. Sweden of 7 July 1989, series A No. 159), to the economic rights which reflect the relationships with clients and activity relations of a firm (European Court of Human Rights, case Van Marle and others v. Netherlands of 26 June 1986, series A No. 101), to rights of claim of property nature (European Court of Human Rights, the case Pressos Compania Naviera SA and others v. Belgium of 20 November 1995, series 4 No. 332), to claims to pay the expenses which have accumulated in the course of fulfilment of obligations under contract (European Court of Human Rights, the case Raffineries Grecques Stran and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece of 9 December 1994, series A No. 301-B), to the right to pension that resulted from work (European Court of Human Rights, the case Gaygusuz v. Austria of 16 September 1996, Report 1996-IV), to the right to the old age pension (European Court of Human Rights, the case Wessels-Bergervoet v. Netherlands of 4 June 2002), etc. The European Court of Human Rights has noted that, under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, property or possessions which belong to a person are defended as well as legal demands (claims) on the basis of which the claimant may argue that he has at least “a legitimate expectation” to dispose of the property (European Court of Human Rights, admissibility decision in Malhous v. Czech Republic of 13 December 2000, Reports on cases and decisions 2001-X). Upon the assessment of all circumstances of a case, the guarantees of the right of every natural or legal person to dispose of his property which are consolidated in Article 1 of the First Protocol have been applied also in defence of economic interests arising out of the receiving of social benefits, as well as stocks, real property, management of land, etc.

It also needs to be noted that, according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (European Court of Human Rights, admissibility decision in Schwengel v. Germany of 2 March 2000, admissibility decision in Jankovic v. Croatia of 12 October 2000, admissibility decision in Skórkiewicz v. Poland of 1 June 1999), Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms may not be referred to if a special privilege of property nature which had been granted on the basis of political motives was reduced or abolished.

While applying Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights does not deny the possibility of reorganisation of pensionary maintenance and social security. Taking account of concrete circumstances (European Court of Human Rights, admissibility decision in Jankovic v. Croatia of 12 October 2000, Reports on cases and decisions 2001-X), the European Court of Human Rights has stated that the state, while regulating social policy, is in possession of sufficiently broad opportunities to change amounts of pensions. However, it is clear from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights that it is necessary to observe certain requirements while amending legal regulation of this field. For instance, the European Court of Human Rights has noted that the applied means must be in conformity to the objective sought, that, taking account of Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the First Protocol, interference by the state must ensure the balance between the general interest of society and the requirement to protect fundamental rights of the person (European Court of Human Rights, the case Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden of 23 September 1982, series A No. 52; European Court of Human Rights, the case Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy of 28 September 1995, series A 315-B, and other cases).

The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights as a source of construction of law is also important to construction and applicability of Lithuanian law (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 8 May 2000, 10 May 2001, 19 September 2002, 23 October 2002, and 24 March 2003).

5. Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution provides: “Each human being may freely choose a job and business, and shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy working conditions, just pay for work, and social security in the event of unemployment.”

Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that each human being may freely choose a job and business. This freedom is one of the necessary conditions for satisfying human vital needs, and of ensuring his appropriate place in society. The constitutional freedom of each human being to freely choose a job and business implies the duty of the legislature to create legal preconditions for implementation of this freedom. While creating them, the legislature is empowered, while taking account of the nature of a job and business, to establish the conditions of implementation of the right to freely choose a job and business. While doing this, he must observe the Constitution.

In its rulings of 30 June 2000 and 25 November 2002 the Constitutional Court held that, under the Constitution, it is impossible to establish the legal regulation according to which a person, while implementing one constitutional right, would lose the possibility of implementing another constitutional right.

It is noteworthy in the context of the case under consideration that, under the Constitution, it is not permitted to establish any such legal regulation which would restrict the opportunities to freely choose another job and business to persons to whom the state guarantees the right to receive the state pension of officials and servicemen granted under the law, though these persons meet the conditions established to those who wish to work or engage in business.

6. Article 29 of the Constitution provides:

All persons shall be equal before the law, the court, and other State institutions and officials.

The human being may not have his rights restricted, nor may be granted any privileges on the grounds of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, social status, beliefs, convictions, or views.”

Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution consolidates formal equality of all persons, Paragraph 2 of this article consolidates the principle of non-discrimination and not granting privileges to persons. The constitutional principle of the equality of persons before the law means an innate human right to be treated equally with the others.

In its rulings the Constitutional Court has held many a time that this principle must be followed both in the passage of laws and in their application. The said principle obliges one to legally assess homogeneous facts in the same manner and prohibits any arbitrary assessment of essentially the same facts in a different manner. It also needs to be noted that, on the other hand, the constitutional principle of the equality of persons before the law does not deny the possibility of providing, by law, a different legal regulation in respect to certain categories of persons who are in different situations. The variety of social life may determine the manner and content of legal regulation.

While assessing whether an established different legal regulation is a grounded one, particular legal circumstances must be taken into account. First of all, differences of legal situation of subjects and objects to which different legal regulation is applied must be considered; secondly, one has to take into account the conformity of legal acts according to their hierarchy, scope of regulation, etc. (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 28 February 1996). The compliance of a concrete legal norm with Article 29 of the Constitution may be assessed only by taking into account all significant circumstances.

The principle of the equality of all persons which is consolidated in Article 29 of the Constitution includes the prohibition on discrimination and privileges alike. Discrimination is most often understood as a restriction on human rights according to gender, race, nationality, language, origin, social status, religion, convictions, opinions or other indications. However, differentiated legal regulation when it is applied to certain groups of persons which are distinguished by the same signs, and in case one strives for positive and socially meaningful goals, is not regarded as discrimination or privileges. It has been noted in the conclusion of the Constitutional Court of 24 January 1995 that the so-called “positive discrimination” may not be interpreted as granting privileges. Special requirements or certain conditions are not categorised as discriminative limitations, either, if their establishment is related to peculiarities of regulated relationships.

III

On the compliance of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 (wording of 21 December 2000) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter with Article 23, Paragraph 2 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48, and Article 52 of the Constitution, as well as the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

1. Article 11 of the Law (wording of 13 December 1994) established: “State pensions shall not be paid to the officials and servicemen on service except widowhood pensions. State pensions of officials and servicemen shall be paid to retired officials and servicemen in the amounts established by this law irrespective of their received income. State pensions of officials and servicemen shall not be paid to pensioners who are fully supported by the State.”

2. The Seimas amended Article 11 by the Law on the Amendment of Article 11 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter and set it forth as follows:

Article 11. Payment of the pension to the pensioners who are on service or working

State pensions shall not be paid to the officials and servicemen on service except widowhood pensions.

Retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance <...>, shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension. The payable 30 percent shall be calculated on the computed state pension of officials and servicemen (Article 7 and 9 of this Law). In cases when the amount of the computed state pension of officials and servicemen (Article 7, 9 and Paragraph 7 of Article 16 of this Law) must be limited according to the procedure established in Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Law on State Pensions, the payable 30 percent shall be calculated on the limited amount of the state pension of officials and servicemen.

Pensions for the years of service and disability pensions which were granted to respective officials and servicemen according to the procedure that was valid until 1 January 1995 shall also be paid under the procedure established in Paragraph 2 of this article irrespective of the fact whether they have been recalculated according to this law (Paragraph 10 of Article 16), or have not been recalculated (Paragraph 2 of Article 16) if the recipients of these pensions had insured income after granting the pensions.

A recipient of the state pension of officials or servicemen must inform the institution which pays him his pension about insured income within 10 days from the day of occurrence of this income. In case one does not timely inform about this income and due to this the pension is overpaid, the surplus payment of the pension shall be recovered from the recipient of the pension according to the procedure established in the Law on the State Social Insurance Pensions and other laws.

The state pensions of officials and servicemen shall not be paid to pensioners who are fully supported by the State.”

The Law on Amendment of Article 11 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter came into force on 1 January 2001.

2.1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner:

a) by its ruling of 18 September 2001 requests an investigation into whether Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) is not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law consolidated in the Preamble of the Constitution, and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution;

b) by its ruling of 9 October 2001 requests an investigation into whether the sentence “Retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance <...>, shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) is not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law consolidated in the Preamble of the Constitution, Paragraph 1 of Article 23 and Article 52 of the Constitution which consolidates the right of citizens to receive old age and disability pensions guaranteed by the State;

c) by its ruling of 4 December 2001 requests an investigation into whether the provision “retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance <...>, shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

2.2. Although the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, by its ruling of 18 September 2001 requests an investigation into whether entire Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) is not in conflict with the Constitution, it is clear from the arguments of the ruling that the petitioner has doubts as to the compliance of not whole Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000), but of the provision “retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance <...>, shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) with Article 52, Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 48, Paragraph 2 of Article 29 of the Constitution, and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

2.3. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, by its rulings of 18 September 2001 and 4 December 2001 requests an investigation into whether the provision “retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance <...>, shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) is not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law which are consolidated in the Preamble of the Constitution.

In the Preamble to the Constitution the striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and a state under the rule of law is declared. The values and striving which are consolidated in the Constitution manifest themselves in its norms and principles. The striving for an open, just, harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law should be construed inseparably from the norms and principles of the Constitution, and from the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, which embodies the striving consolidated in the Preamble of the Constitution, among them (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 23 February 2000, 18 October 2001, 12 July 2001 and 4 March 2003).

The Constitutional Court will investigate whether the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) which is impugned by the petitioner is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

2.4. Subsequent to the petitions of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, the Constitutional Court will investigate whether the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) “retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance <...>, shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” is not in conflict with the Constitution.

3. It has been mentioned that Article 11 of the Law (wording of 13 December 1994) established that state pensions of officials and servicemen shall be paid to retired officials and servicemen in the amounts established by the Law irrespective of their received income.

It has also been mentioned that the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) established that retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance, shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension.

It needs to be noted that, according to Paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000), the state pension of officials and servicemen is not paid to the officials and servicemen in service, except the widowhood pension. This means, inter alia, that, under the law, to the retired officials and servicemen who had been granted and paid the state pension of officials and servicemen this pension is not paid upon their returning to service.

In the opinion of the petitioner, under the legal regulation established by the impugned provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000), the amount of the paid pension, which had been granted according to the previously valid legal regulation, to the above-mentioned retired officials and servicemen was limited. Thus, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court has doubts as to the constitutionality of the impugned provision.

4. While deciding whether the impugned provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) is not in conflict with Articles 52, 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 48, Paragraph 2 of Article 29 of the Constitution, and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be noted that it consolidated the rule that the retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen receive the corresponding income or receive corresponding benefits, shall be paid not the whole pension of officials and servicemen of the established amount, but only a part of it in the amount of 30 percent of its size.

Comparing this legal regulation with the legal regulation provided by Article 11 of the Law (wording of 13 December 1994), it should be held that the amount of granted, and in the cases when this pension had been granted and paid, the amount of the paid pension as well, was reduced to these retired officials and servicemen.

5. It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision “the State shall guarantee” of Article 52 of the Constitution means, inter alia, that, upon establishing by law certain pensionary maintenance, the state is obligated to guarantee it to the indicated persons on such grounds and by such amounts which have been established by the law, while the persons who meet the conditions provided by the law, have the right to require that the state grant and pay this pension to them. Thus, the said provision of Article 52 of the Constitution implies the duty of the legislature, while it establishes a certain pension by law, to consolidate the legal regulation which would ensure the payment of this pension to persons who meet the conditions established by law.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that pensions granted and paid under the Constitution may be reduced only in the event of an extraordinary situation in the state when there is objective insufficiency of funds necessary to pay the pensions. In this case the granted and paid pensions may be reduced to the extent necessary to ensure vitally important interests of society and to protect other constitutional values. It needs also to be noted that the reduced pensions may only be paid temporarily. In addition, while implementing the reform of the pensionary system, some pensions may be abolished, the amounts of others may be reduced. In this case the legislature must establish a just mechanism of compensations for the persons who have suffered some losses because of this change in the regulation.

Otherwise, if one established the legal regulation according to which the payment of the granted and paid state pension of officials and servicemen is no longer paid or reduced, one would violate the provision of Article 52 of the Constitution that the state shall guarantee the pensions in cases provided by the law.

It has been mentioned that a person who meets the conditions established by the law in order to receive the state pension of officials and servicemen, has the right to receive this pension. If a person has been granted and paid the state pension of officials and servicemen, it must be paid further. Upon the establishment in the impugned provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) that respective persons are paid not the whole pension, but only its part in the amount of 30 percent, the amount of the granted and till then paid state pension of officials and servicemen was reduced. This legal regulation violates the provision of Article 52 of the Constitution that the state shall guarantee the right to receive pensions and social assistance in cases provided for by the law.

Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that the impugned provision “retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance <...>, shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) is in conflict with Article 52 of the Constitution.

6. It has been mentioned that before the entry into force of the impugned provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000), according to Article 11 of the Law (wording of 13 December 1994) the state pensions of officials and servicemen were paid to the retired officials and servicemen in the amount established by law irrespective of the received income. The impugned provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Law limited the rights of these persons to receive the whole state pension of officials or servicemen in the established amount.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that, under Article 23 of the Constitution, the persons who have been granted and paid the state pensions of officials and servicemen have the right to demand that the payments be paid further in the amounts which were granted and paid earlier. It needs to be noted that the pensions granted and paid under the Constitution may be reduced only in the event of an extraordinary situation in the state when there is objective insufficiency of funds necessary to pay the pensions. In such case the granted and paid pensions may be reduced to the extent necessary to ensure vitally important interests of society and to protect other constitutional values. It is also noteworthy that reduced pensions may only be paid temporarily. In addition, while implementing the reform of the pensionary system, some pensions may be abolished, the amounts of others may be reduced. In this case the legislature must establish a just mechanism of compensations for persons who have suffered some losses because of this change in the regulation. Otherwise, the legal regulation, according to which the payment of the granted and paid state pension of officials and servicemen is no longer paid or reduced, should be judged to be in violation of Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution which stipulates that the rights of ownership shall be protected by law.

The legal regulation which has been established by the impugned provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) not only violates the acquired property right of the person to the state pension of officials and servicemen which is guaranteed by the state, but also does not protect his right to claim that the pension of the established amount be paid further, which is based on the person’s service to the State of Lithuania, when the person has fulfilled all conditions established by the law and when this pension has been granted and paid. Thus, having held that the impugned provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) violates Article 52 of the Constitution, one is also to hold that this provision is not in line with the defence and protection of the right of ownership which is consolidated in Article 23 of the Constitution.

Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that the provision “retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance <...>, shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 (wording of 21 December 2000) of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter is in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution.

7. It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that, under the Constitution, it is impossible to establish any such legal regulation according to which a person, while implementing one constitutional right, would lose an opportunity to implement another constitutional right. The legal regulation which would restrict the freedom to freely choose a job and business to persons to whom the pension, which is guaranteed by the state under the law, has been granted and paid, though these persons meet the conditions established to those who wish to work or engage in business, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

The relationships which are regulated by the part of the impugned provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000), according to which retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance, shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension, are not related to the implementation of the constitutional freedom of a person to choose a job or business of the person. Thus, this legal regulation cannot restrict the freedom of the person to choose a job or business which is consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

The impugned Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) establishes, inter alia, that retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of the state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension. This legal regulation creates a situation in which a person, who has been granted and paid the state pension of officials and servicemen, must choose: either to receive the whole granted state pension of officials or servicemen, or to have some income on which contributions of the state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid and to receive part of the state pension of officials and servicemen which amounts only to 30 percent of its size.

Thus, the legal regulation consolidated in the impugned Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000), according to which the person who has been granted and paid the state pension of officials and servicemen must choose either to receive the whole granted state pension of officials or servicemen, or to have some income on which contributions of the state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid and to receive part of the state pension of officials and servicemen which amounts only to 30 percent of its size, restricts the freedom to choose a job or business which is established in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, although the said person meets the conditions established by the law which are necessary in order to have a certain job or engage in certain business.

Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that the provision “retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of the state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid <...> shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 (wording of 21 December 2000) of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

8. It has been mentioned that the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and legal security are inseparable elements of the principle of a state under the rule of law. These principles are also related to the duty of the state to fulfil the obligations that it has undertaken.

Under the legal regulation which is consolidated by the impugned provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000), the retired officials or servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of the state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance, are paid not the whole granted state pension of officials or servicemen but the part amounting to 30 percent of the said pension.

The impugned provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) consolidates the legal regulation which reduces the amount of the granted and paid state pension of officials and servicemen. It has been mentioned that after the types of pensions, the persons entitled to the pension, the bases of the granting and payment of pensions, their amounts, and the conditions have been established by law, a duty arises for the state to follow the constitutional principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty in the area of pensionary maintenance relations.

It has been also held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the said legal regulation is in conflict with Articles 52 and 23 of the Constitution. Having held this, one is also to hold that this legal regulation violates the legitimate expectations arising out of the Constitution and the law.

It has been mentioned that the protection of legitimate expectations is an element of the principle of a state under the rule of law. Thus, the impugned provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) is in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that the provision “retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance <...>, shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 (wording of 21 December 2000) of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter is in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

9. It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) that the retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension is in conflict with Article 23 and 52 of the Constitution, the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, while the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) that the retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of the state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution. Having held this, the Constitutional Court in this case will not investigate whether the impugned provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) is not in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution.

IV

On the compliance of the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter that the granted state pension of officials and servicemen shall not be further paid to persons convicted for commission of intentional crimes with Articles 23 and 29 of the Constitution.

1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, by its ruling of 31 October 2001 requests an investigation into whether Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law to the extent which establishes that the payment of the state pension of officials and servicemen shall be no longer paid for a person convicted for commission of an intentional crime is not in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution.

The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, by its ruling of 13 November 2001 requests an investigation into whether the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law that the granted state pension of officials and servicemen shall not be further paid to persons convicted for commission of intentional crimes is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution.

2. Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter provides: “The state pension of officials and servicemen shall not be granted and the payment of the granted pension shall be no longer paid for persons convicted for commission of intentional crimes.”

3. The provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law that the granted state pension of officials and servicemen shall not be further paid to persons convicted for commission of intentional crimes means that the payment of the granted pension of officials and servicemen to the person, which was paid until then, is terminated.

Thus, under the impugned provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law, the basis for termination of the payment of granted pension that was paid until then is conviction for commission of an intentional crime.

4. Crimes are violations of law by which people’s constitutional rights and freedoms and other constitutional values are violated in the most grossest manner. One of the means for protection of rights and freedoms of the human being as well as other constitutional values is criminal liability for criminal deeds (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 10 June 2003).

In a state under the rule of law, the legislature has the right as well as the duty to prohibit, by means of laws, the deeds whereby essential damage is inflicted on the interests of persons, society or the state or it is threatened that such damage will occur, and to establish sanctions for the commission of such deeds by law.

5. It needs to be noted that the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law whereby the payment of the granted pension is terminated for the person convicted for an intentional crime is a sanction of property nature, which, by its strictness, amounts to criminal punishment.

6. Paragraph 5 of Article 31 of the Constitution provides: “No one may be punished a second time for the same crime.”

The provision of Paragraph 5 of Article 31 of the Constitution reflects the legal principle non bis in idem: the person may not be punished a second time for the same violation of law (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 7 May 2001).

7. Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law has established the legal regulation whereby in cases when a person has been granted and paid the state pension of officials and servicemen, after he is convicted for commission of an intentional crime, the payment of such pension to him is terminated, i.e. after this person has already been convicted for commission of the intentional crime.

The legal regulation established in Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law means that the person who has been granted and paid the state pension of officials and servicemen, and who has already been convicted by court for commission of an intentional crime, is punished a second time for the same crime by applying a sanction of property nature against him (termination of the state pension of officials and servicemen which was granted to him and paid until them), which, by its strictness, amounts to criminal punishment. Such legal regulation violates Paragraph 5 of Article 31 of the Constitution.

8. It has already been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the reduction of the granted state pension of officials and servicemen which was paid until then is in conflict with Articles 23 and 52 of the Constitution. Meanwhile, under the legal regulation established in the impugned Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law, the payment of the state pension of officials and servicemen which was granted and paid to the person is terminated altogether.

9. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter that the granted state pension of officials and servicemen shall not be further paid to persons convicted for commission of intentional crimes is in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 5 of Article 31 and Article 52 of the Constitution.

10. Having held that that the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law that the granted state pension of officials and servicemen shall not be further paid to persons convicted for commission of intentional crimes is in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 5 of Article 31 and Article 52 of the Constitution, in this case the Constitutional Court will not investigate whether the impugned provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution.

V

On the compliance of Item 25 (wording of 25 May 2001) of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter with Paragraph 1 of Article 48, Article 52 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

1. It was established in Item 25 (wording of 20 January 1995) of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office: “The officials and servicemen in service shall not be paid the state pension of officials and servicemen, save the pensions of widows and orphans. The amount of the state pension of officials and servicemen of the officials and servicemen who repeatedly retired from service, who were granted the pension prior to 31 December 1994, shall be computed on the grounds of the new dismissal data. If the repeatedly computed pension for these persons is smaller than the one granted until 1 January 1995, the previously granted pension computed under the procedure established by Article 16 of the law shall be paid.”

2. By its Resolution (No. 612) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 83) ‘On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service’ of 20 January 1995” of 25 May 2001 the Government partially amended Item 25 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service and set forth Item 25 thereof as follows:

The officials and servicemen in service shall not be paid the state pension of officials and servicemen, save the pensions of widows and orphans.

The officials and servicemen who have retired from service, who have insured income (the income considered insured income is pointed out in Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law) after they have been granted either the state pension of officials or servicemen for service, or the state disabled pension of officials or servicemen, at that month shall be paid the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension. When the person had insured income in the course of not the entire month but only part of it, the payable 30 percent should be calculated for only the period of the month during which the recipient of the pension had insured income. For the rest of the period of the month during which the recipient of the pension did not have insured income, the respective part for the given month of the granted pension must be paid. The entire granted pension is paid for the periods when the person, while working under employment contract, on the basis of membership or service, temporarily did not have any insured income because he was not subject to receive the said income (at the time of holidays without pay, or sickness, when he is not subject to receive a sickness benefit, etc.). In cases when the amount of the calculated state pension of the official or serviceman must be limited under the procedure established in Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Law on State Pensions, the payable 30 percent must be calculated on the pension of limited amount which has to be paid to the official or serviceman. If the official or serviceman receives, together with the state pension, the state social insurance pension, the payable 30 percent are calculated on the state pension of limited amount, the size of which is established from the last quarter but one preceding the month for which the state pension is paid by subtracting the state social insurance pension of the given month, granted and indexed under procedure established in the Law of State Social Insurance Pensions from the 1.5 amount sum of the minimum monthly salary in the economy of this country, announced by the Department of Statistics under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. Under the same procedure and conditions the pensions for service and disabled pensions granted prior to 1 January 1995 must be paid (without taking into consideration whether they have been recalculated under Article 16 of the Law), if the recipients of these pensions received insured income at that month, by taking account of the number of calendar days of the period during which they had insured income. The recipient of the pension of the official or serviceman must, within 10 days of the reception of the income of the occurrence of the other circumstances, inform the institution which pays the pension about his insured income and other circumstances (conviction, amount of the state social insurance pension, changes in the amount, etc.) which influence the amount and payment of the pension. The recipient of the pension confirms the fact of the reception of insured income upon presenting his social insurance certificate, and the person who does not have it produces his employment record book. The fact of reception of sickness, maternity, maternity (paternity), unemployment benefits is proved by respective certificates issued by the employer, territorial divisions of the Board of the State Social Insurance Fund or the labour exchange, indicating the period of the payment of the said benefits. In case of failure to duly inform about this income or other circumstances and due to this there is overpayment in the pension, the sum of the overpaid pension shall be exacted from the recipient of the pension under the procedure established in Paragraph 4 of Article 11 of the Law, Paragraph 2 of Article 42 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 59-1153; 1999, No. 66-2115) and Item 75 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1156) ‘On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Social Insurance Pensions’ of 18 November 1994 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 91-1781).

The amount of the state pension of officials and servicemen of the officials and servicemen who repeatedly retired from service, who were granted the pension prior to 31 December 1994, shall be computed on the grounds of the new dismissal data. If the repeatedly computed pension for these persons is smaller than the one granted until 1 January 1995, the previously granted pension computed under the procedure established by Article 16 of the law shall be paid.”

3. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, by its ruling of 18 September 2001 requests an investigation into whether Item 25 of the Regulations is not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a just, harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution as well as with Paragraph 1 of Article 48, Article 52 of the Constitution.

Although the petitioner requests an investigation into whether entire Item 25 of the Regulations is not in conflict with the Constitution, however, it is clear from the arguments set forth in the ruling that the petitioner doubts as to the compliance of not entire Item 25 of the Regulations but of the provision “the officials and servicemen who have retired from service, who have insured income (the income considered insured income is pointed out in Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law) after they have been either granted either the state pension of officials or servicemen for service or the state disabled pension of officials or servicemen, at that month shall be paid the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Section 2 of the same item with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court will investigate the compliance of only this provision with the Constitution.

4. When deciding whether the impugned provision of Section 2 of Item 25 of the Regulations is not in conflict with the Constitution, it should be noted that it sets down a rule that the officials and servicemen who have retired from service, who have insured income (the income considered insured income is pointed out in Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law) after they have been granted either the state pension of officials or servicemen for service, or the state disabled pension of officials or servicemen, at that month shall be paid the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension. Virtually identical legal regulation has been established in the provision “retired officials and servicemen who, after designation of state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance <...> shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law.

5. It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that:

1) the provision “retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance <...>, shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) is in conflict with Article 52 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

2) the provision “retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid <...>, shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law (wording of 21 December 2000) is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

Having held this, it should be held that the provision “the officials and servicemen who have retired from service, who have insured income (the income considered insured income is pointed out in Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law) after they have been either granted the state pension of officials or servicemen for service, or the state disabled pension of officials or servicemen, at that month shall be paid the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Section 2 of Item 25 of the Regulations (wording of 25 May 2001) is in conflict with Article 52, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

VI

On the compliance of Item 5 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter with Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter.

1. After the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania on 11 March 1990, the system of the interior was reformed. In the course of the reform, one attempted to further ensure public order and security of society. On 21 March 1990, the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania adopted an appeal to employees of institutions of the interior asking that every citizen of the Republic of Lithuania, irrespective of his nationality or world-view, who has work experience in institutions of the interior, who is ready to swear loyalty to Lithuania and serve it, should continue to conscientiously perform his duties. In the appeal of the Supreme Council it was said that “the social guarantees for employees of the interior will be preserved: pensions will be paid regardless of the fact in which state the service has been performed, the acquired official rank will be retained, the minimum salary of the official will exceed the minimum salary in the Republic.”

The time of service of officials and servicemen necessary to receive the state pension of officials and soldiers had been established, before the adoption of the Law, by the Government Resolution (No. 490) “On the Pensionary Maintenance of Officials and Servicemen of the System of the Interior” of 25 June 1992 and the Government Resolution No. (865) “On the Pensionary Maintenance of Officials and Servicemen of the System of National Defence” of 19 November 1992. Under Items 1.1.3 of the said resolutions, the period of service necessary to receive a pension for the years of service includes the time of service in the armed forces of the USSR and other states, the USSR Border Guard and the system of the interior.

2. On 13 December 1994, the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office which went into effect on 1 January 1995. This law provided as to what persons the state pension of officials and servicemen is granted and paid, also the grounds and conditions for the granting and paying of these pensions as well as the amounts of these pensions. Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Law provided, inter alia, the following:

To the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen of the interior, state security, national defence and prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Lithuania, the following periods that had been prior to the entry into effect of this Law shall be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension:

1) actual time period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, the interior and other services (save the service in extermination squads and battalions) of other states—under procedure established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania.”

The formula “under procedure established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania” means, inter alia, that by the aforesaid law the Government was commissioned to establish a procedure under which the periods that had been prior to the entry of the Law into effect during which the said persons actually served in the armed forces, border guard service, the interior and other services (save the service in extermination squads and battalions) of other states would be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension of officials and servicemen to these persons.

3. By the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office were approved. Item 5 of these regulations provides: “The time period of service specified in Article 16 of the law shall be included to officials and servicemen admitted to the service in the systems of the interior, state security, national defence, and prosecutor’s office before the day of the entry into force of the law.”

These regulations have been amended and/or supplemented many a time, but Item 5 thereof has remained unchanged.

4. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, requests an investigation into whether “Item 5 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 83) ‘On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service’ of 20 January 1995 was not in conflict with Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter (13 December 1994. No. I-693)”.

In the opinion of the petitioner, after it was established in Item 5 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office as approved by the 20 January 1995 resolution (No. 83) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania that the time of service pointed out in Item 1 of Paragraph 4 (wording of 13 December 1994) of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office is included to the officials and servicemen adopted into service in the structures specified in the Law until the day of entry into effect of the said law, i.e. 1 January 1995, the circle of persons, whose service record could include the time period specified in Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Law, is thus narrowed if compared with that provided for in the Law.

5. While deciding whether Item 5 of the Regulations is not in conflict with Item 1 of Paragraph 4 (wording of 13 December 1994) of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office, it is necessary to elucidate for which persons the periods that had been before the entry of the said law into effect are, under Item 1 of Paragraph 4 (wording of 13 December 1994) of Article 16 of the said law, equalled to the time of service necessary for granting the pension.

6. The formula “the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen of the interior, state security, national defence and prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Lithuania” includes all the officials and servicemen admitted to service in the institutions of the Republic of Lithuania which are indicated by the Law irrespective of whether they were admitted to service before the Law went into effect on 1 January 1995 or after it went into effect.

7. If one compares the legal regulation established in Item 5 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office as approved by government resolution No. 83 of 20 January 1995 with that established in Paragraph 4 of Article 16 (wording of 13 December 1994) of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, one notices that Item 5 of the said regulations establishes an additional condition for the persons to whom the time of service indicated in Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Law is included, which is not provided for in the Law, i.e. they had to be admitted to service prior to the day of entry into effect of the said law. After such a condition had been established, the Regulations narrowed the circle of persons to whom the time of service indicated in Paragraph 4 (wording of 13 December 1994) of Article 16 of the Law is included.

Thus, in Item 5 of the Regulations, the Government established the legal regulation which competes with the provision of Paragraph 4 (wording of 13 December 1994) of Article 16 of the Law whereby to the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen of the interior, state security, national defence and prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Lithuania the actual time period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, the interior and other services (save the service in extermination squads and battalions) of other states, which had been prior to the entry into effect of this law, shall, under procedure established by the Government, be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension.

8. The Constitutional Court has stated in its rulings more than once that, under the Constitution, a government resolution is a substatutory legal act, it cannot be in conflict with the law, change the content of the norms of the law, it may not contain any such legal norms which would compete with those of the law. The Government can only establish the legal regulation which is in conformity with laws. The procedure established by the Government may not contain any legal norms establishing different legal regulation than that established in the law and competing with norms of laws.

9. Taking account of the arguments set forth above, it should be concluded that Item 5 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office, as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 is in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 4 (wording of 13 December 1994) of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and the Prosecutor’s Office that to the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen of the interior, state security, national defence and prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Lithuania the actual time period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, the interior and other services (save the service in extermination squads and battalions) of other states, which had been prior to the entry into effect of this law, shall, under procedure established by the Government, be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension.

10. The provision “to the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen of the interior, state security, national defence and prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Lithuania, the following periods that had been prior to the entry into effect of this Law shall be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension” of the 13 December 1994 Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office has been amended and/or supplemented more than once.

By Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Supplement and Amendment of the Title, Articles 1, 3, 6, 12, and 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office, which was adopted on 18 April 2000, the aforementioned provision of Paragraph 4 (wording of 13 December 1994) of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office was supplemented with the words “the Department of Prisons and of the establishments and state enterprises which are subordinate to the latter”. By Article 1 of the Law on the Supplement and Amendment of the Title, Articles 1, 3, 6, 12, and 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office the title of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office was amended and titled the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter.

By Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Supplement and Amendment of the Title, Articles 1, 3, 6, 12, and 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office, which was adopted on 2 May 2000, in the provision “to the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen of the interior, state security, national defence, prosecutor’s office and the Department of Prisons and of the establishments and state enterprises which are subordinate to the latter, the following periods that had been prior to the entry into effect of this Law shall be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension” of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter (wording of 18 April 2000) the words “Special Investigation Service” were entered, the words “the Department of Prisons and of the establishments and state enterprises which are subordinate to the latter” were crossed out and this provision was set forth as follows: “to the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen of the interior, the Special Investigation Service, state security, national defence, and prosecutor’s office, the following periods that had been prior to the entry into effect of this law, shall be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension”. By Article 1 of the Law on the Supplement and Amendment of the Title, Articles 1, 3, 6, 12, and 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office, the title of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office was changed—it was titled the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office.

By Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Supplement and Amendment of the Title, Articles 1, 3, 6, 12, and 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office, which was adopted on 13 July 2000, in the provision “to the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen of the interior, the Special Investigation Service, state security, national defence and prosecutor’s office the following periods that had been prior to the entry into effect of this law shall be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension” of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 (wording of 2 May 2000) of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office the words “the Department of Prisons and of the establishments and state enterprises which are subordinate to the latter” were entered and this provision was set forth as follows: “to the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen of the interior, state security, national defence, prosecutor’s office, the Special Investigation Service, and the Department of Prisons and of the establishments and state enterprises which are subordinate to the latter, the following periods that had been prior to the entry into effect of this law shall be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension”. By Article 1 of Law on the Supplement and Amendment of the Title, Articles 1, 3, 6, 12, and 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office, the title of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office was changed—it was titled the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter.

By the aforesaid amendments and supplements to the provision “to the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen of the interior, state security, national defence and prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Lithuania, the following periods that had been prior to the entry into effect of this Law shall be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension” of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the 13 December 1994 Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office and its subsequent wordings the established rule, by which under procedure established by the Government to the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen in the institutions (systems) indicated in this provision, the actual time period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, the interior and other services (save the service in extermination squads and battalions) of other states is equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension regardless of the fact whether these persons were admitted to service before the entry into effect of the said law on 1 January 1995, or after it has gone into effect, has remained unchanged.

11. By Item 1.4.1 of the Government Resolution (No. 861) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 83) ‘On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service’ of 20 January 1995” of 18 July 2000, the title of the regulations as approved by government resolution No. 83 of 20 January 1995 was changed: they were titled the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter.

12. The Constitutional Court has held that in cases when a government resolution containing legal norms which are in conflict with the law was adopted prior to the adoption of the law, such a government resolution must be coordinated with the norms of the subsequently adopted law (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 5 April 2000 and 19 February 2002).

13. In this ruling of the Constitutional Court, it has been held that Item 5 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 is in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 4 (wording of 13 December 1994) of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and the Prosecutor’s Office that to the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen of the interior, state security, national defence and prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Lithuania the actual time period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, the interior and other services (save the service in extermination squads and battalions) of other states, which had been prior to the entry into effect of this law, shall, under procedure established by the Government, be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension.

Also, it must be held that, although the aforesaid regulations have been amended many a time, Item 5 thereof has remained unchanged.

Having held this, it should be held that Item 5 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 is in conflict with:

1) the provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 (wording of 18 April 2000) of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter that to the persons admitted to service as Republic of Lithuania officials and servicemen of the interior, state security, national defence, prosecutor’s office and the Department of Prisons and of the establishments and state enterprises which are subordinate to the latter the actual time period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, the interior and other services (save the service in extermination squads and battalions) of other states, which had been prior to the entry into effect of this law, shall, under procedure established by the Government, be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension.

2) the provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 (wording of 2 May 2000) of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office, that to the persons admitted to service as Republic of Lithuania officials and servicemen of the interior, state security, national defence, and prosecutor’s office the actual time period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, the interior and other services (save the service in extermination squads and battalions) of other states, which had been prior to the entry into effect of this law, shall, under procedure established by the Government, be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension.

On the grounds of the same arguments, it should be held that Item 5 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office, as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, and which by Item 1.4.1 of the Government Resolution (No. 861) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 83) ‘On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service’ of 20 January 1995” of 18 July 2000 were titled the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter, is in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 (wording of 13 July 2000) of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter that to the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen of the system of the interior, state security, national defence, prosecutor’s office, the Special Investigation Service, and the Department of Prisons and of the establishments and state enterprises which are subordinate to the latter the actual time period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, the interior and other services (save the service in extermination squads and battalions) of other states, which had been prior to the entry into effect of this law, shall, under procedure established by the Government, be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension.

Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 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:

1. To recognise that the provision “retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid, or who receive sickness (including those paid by the employer for the days of sickness), maternity, maternity (paternity) or unemployment benefits of the state social insurance <...>, shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 (wording of 21 December 2000) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter is in conflict with Article 23, Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

2. To recognise that the provision “retired officials and servicemen who, after having been granted the state pensions of officials or servicemen for the service or disability pensions of officials or servicemen, receive the income on which contributions of state social pensions insurance are calculated and paid <...>, shall receive the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 (wording of 21 December 2000) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

3. To recognise that Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter that the granted state pension of officials and servicemen shall not be further paid to persons convicted for commission of intentional crimes is in conflict with Article 23, Paragraph 5 of Article 31 and Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

4. To recognise that the provision “the officials and servicemen who have retired from service, who have insured income (the income considered insured income is pointed out in Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the law) after they have been granted either the state pension of officials or servicemen for service, or the state disabled pension of officials or servicemen, at that month shall be paid the part of the state pension of officials or servicemen which amounts to 30 percent of the pension” of Section 2 of Item 25 (wording of 25 May 2001) of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter as approved by the 20 January 1995 resolution (No. 83) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

5. To recognise that Item 5 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the System of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 is in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 4 (wording of 13 December 1994) of Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and the Prosecutor’s Office that to the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen of the interior, state security, national defence and prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Lithuania the actual time period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, the interior and other services (save the service in extermination squads and battalions) of other states, which had been prior to the entry into effect of this law, shall, under procedure established by the Government, be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension.

6. To recognise that Item 5 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 is in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 April 2000) of Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter that to the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen of the interior, state security, national defence and prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Lithuania the actual time period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, the interior and other services (save the service in extermination squads and battalions) of other states, which had been prior to the entry into effect of this law, shall, under procedure established by the Government, be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension.

7. To recognise that Item 5 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 is in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 4 (wording of 2 May 2000) of Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence and the Prosecutor’s Office that to the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen of the interior, state security, national defence and prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Lithuania the actual time period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, the interior and other services (save the service in extermination squads and battalions) of other states, which had been prior to the entry into effect of this law, shall, under procedure established by the Government, be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension.

8. To recognise that Item 5 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecutor’s Office as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, and which by Item 1.4.1 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 861) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 83) ‘On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Extra Pay for the Years of Service’ of 20 January 1995” of 18 July 2000 were titled the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter, is in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 (wording of 13 July 2000) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, and the Department of Prisons and of the Establishments and State Enterprises Which are Subordinate to the Latter that to the persons admitted to service as officials and servicemen of the system of the interior, state security, national defence, prosecutor’s office, the Special Investigation Service, and the Department of Prisons and of the establishments and state enterprises which are subordinate to the latter the actual time period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, the interior and other services (save the service in extermination squads and battalions) of other states, which had been prior to the entry into effect of this law, shall, under procedure established by the Government, be equalled to the time of service necessary to grant the pension.

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:                                                  Armanas Abramavičius

Egidijus Jarašiūnas

Egidijus Kūris

Kęstutis Lapinskas

Zenonas Namavičius

Augustinas Normantas

Jonas Prapiestis

Vytautas Sinkevičius

Stasys Stačiokas