Lt

On the state service

Case No. 51/01-26/02-19/03-22/03-26/03-27/03

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

RULING

ON THE COMPLIANCE OF SOME LEGAL ACTS WHEREBY THE RELATIONS OF THE STATE SERVICE AND THOSE LINKED THERETO ARE REGULATED WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND LAWS

 

13 December 2004

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

Jurgita Meškienė, 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, and Nerijus Rudaitis, Deputy Director of the Law Department of the Ministry of the Interior, acting as the representative 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 6 October 2004 and 11 November 2004, in its public hearings, considered case No. 51/01-26/02-19/03-22/03-26/03-27/03 subsequent to these petitions:

1) the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 12 of Article 62 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service and Paragraph 7 of Article 29 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Local Self-government are not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 33 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution;

2) the petition of the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 24 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service;

3) the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the provisions of Article 26 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service regulating a constituent part of the work remuneration of state servants, extra pay, and which do not particularise the amounts of the extra pay, are not in conflict by their content with the principles of an open, just and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as Articles 29 and 48 of the Constitution;

4) the petition of the Alytus District Local Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 6 of Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service and Item 4 of Article 17 and Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 29 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service are not in conflict with Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

5) the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether (1) Paragraph 1 of Article 7 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 and the provision of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed 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 the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, which regulate calculation and payment of state pensions of officials and servicemen according to the work remuneration of officials and servicemen valid at the month of payment of the pension for the office that they used to hold at the time of retirement, and which do not provide for a prohibition on reducing work remuneration for the month for which the state pension of officials and servicemen is calculated and paid, are not in conflict, as to their content, with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 52 of the Constitution; (2) the provisions of Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed 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 the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, which permit only the Ministry of National Defence, when it grants state pensions of officials and servicemen, to calculate their work remuneration on the basis of the resolutions of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania in which work remuneration of servicemen is established prior to the entry into effect of the law regulating work remuneration of servicemen, are not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Article 29 and Item 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution, as well as Paragraph 1 of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 of Article 12 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; (3) Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service and the provisions of the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002, which limit the amount of the work remuneration of state servants by taking account of the demand of funds calculated by the establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants, which exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget for a respective year, are not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution;

6) the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Article 8 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service, the Resolution of Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-992) “On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions” of 27 June 2002 and the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution (No. IX-1244) “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions’” of 10 December 2002 are not in conflict with Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Article 120, Paragraph 1 of Article 121 and Article 127 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

By the Constitutional Court’s decision of 17 August 2004, these petitions were joined into one case, by giving it reference No. 51/01-26/02-19/03-22/03-26/03-27/03.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling of 5 November 2001, the court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 12 of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130; 1999, No. 105; 2002, No. 45-1708) and Paragraph 7 of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 55-1049; 2000, No. 91-2832) were not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 33 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

2. The Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling of 21 November 2002, the court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 (hereinafter also referred to as the Rules) as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 51-1954) were not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 24 of the Law on the State Service.

3. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling of 3 April 2003, the court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether the provisions of Article 26 of the Law on the State Service regulating a constituent part of the work remuneration of state servants, extra pay, and which do not particularise the amounts of the extra pay, were not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of an open, just and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

4. The Alytus District Local Court, a petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling of 18 April 2003, the court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 6 of Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 45-1709) and Item 4 of Article 17 and Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 29 of the Law on the State Service were not in conflict with Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

5. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling of 5 May 2003, the court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether Article 8 of the Law on the State Service, the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-992) “On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions” of 27 June 2002 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 66-2707) and the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1244) “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions’” of 10 December 2002 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 119-5329) were not in conflict with Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Article 120, Paragraph 1 of Article 121 and Article 127 of the Constitution.

6. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling of 7 May 2003, the court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether (1) Paragraph 1 of Article 7 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 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 99-1958) and the provisions of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 (hereinafter also referred to as the Regulations) as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1995, No. 8-173), which regulate calculation and payment of state pensions of officials and servicemen according to the work remuneration of officials and servicemen valid at the month of payment of the pension for the office that they used to hold at the time of retirement, and which do not provide for a prohibition on reducing work remuneration for the month for which the state pension of officials and servicemen is calculated and paid, were not in conflict, as to their content, with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 52 of the Constitution; (2) the provisions of Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, which permit only the Ministry of National Defence, when it grants state pensions of officials and servicemen, to calculate their work remuneration on the basis of the resolutions of the Government in which work remuneration of servicemen is established prior to the entry into effect of the law regulating work remuneration of servicemen, were not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, Article 29 and Item 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution, as well as Paragraph 1 of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 of Article 12 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; (3) Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service and the provisions of the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002, which limit the amount of the work remuneration of state servants by taking account of the demand of funds calculated by the establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants, which exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget for a respective year, were not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

II

1. The 5 November 2001 petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, is grounded on these arguments.

According to the petitioner, by the provisions of Paragraph 12 of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service and Paragraph 7 (wording of 25 September 2001) of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government opportunities are limited for servants of municipal administration (chief executives are also categorised as such servants) to become members of the council of the municipality in which they are holding office. The petitioner had doubts whether such a limitation imposed on career state servants of municipal administration to be members of the council of the municipality in which they are holding office does not violate the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law, and of the equality of all persons before the law. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the impugned provisions of the laws, the citizen must choose whether to refuse the office that he is holding in the state service or to refuse the powers of a member of the municipal council (to resign). The petitioner believes that the impugned provisions of the laws limit the freedom of the person to choose a job (Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution) and violate the rights of citizens guaranteed by the state to participate in the government of the state, as well as the right to enter into the state service under equal conditions (Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution).

2. The 21 November 2002 petition of the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, is grounded on these arguments.

In the opinion of the petitioner, Paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the Law on the State Service provides for dependence of the positional salary, thus, also of the work remuneration of a state servant, only upon the category of the positions that he is holding, i.e. the persons serving in the entire country and in all state and municipal institutions, who hold the same position under respective categories, must receive the same positional salary. The law does not provide for any other criteria upon which the positional salary of a state servant might depend. The petitioner had doubts whether the Government, by confirming the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 by the Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002, had the right to establish a different procedure of calculation of the work remuneration of state servants than that provided for in Article 24 of the Law on the State Service, and virtually to permit different positional salaries for state servants of the same category, but who work in different institutions, the amounts of which are dependent on the budgetary appropriations assigned to the institutions. According to the petitioner, such legal regulation is deficient, it discriminates certain state servants in respect of others, since holding the same position in the state service, but being in different institutions in regard of territorial or jurisdictional aspect, they receive different work remuneration. The petitioner had doubts whether the Rules are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 24 of the Law on the State Service.

3. The 3 April 2003 petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, is grounded on these arguments.

The petitioner had doubts whether the provisions of Article 26 of the Law on the State Service regulating extra pay and its types paid to state servants and not particularising its amounts are not in conflict with the constitutional principles of an open, just and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law, and of the equality of all persons before the law, since they create an opportunity for state servants of the same category, but who work in different institutions, to receive extra pay of different amounts, which are dependent on the will of the heads of these institutions and budgetary appropriations for work remuneration assigned to these institutions. In the opinion of the petitioner, the impugned provisions of the law violate the right of each human being to get just pay for work guaranteed by the state (Article 48 of the Constitution), since they create an opportunity to discriminate certain state servants with respect to others, i.e. to grant and pay extra pay of different amounts for analogous work.

4. The 18 April 2003 petition of the Alytus District Local Court, a petitioner, is grounded on these arguments.

In the opinion of the petitioner, the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service that the state servants who practice medicine must end this practice till 1 January 2003, Item 4 of Article 17 of the Law on the State Service establishing certain activity that is incompatible with the state service, and the provision of Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 29 of the same law that the official penalty, release from office, may be imposed for the activity incompatible with the state service, limits the right of the person to use his private property, a licence, undisturbed, also his right to freely choose a job, and violates the constitutional principle of equality. In the opinion of the petitioner, the impugned provisions of the laws are in conflict with Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

5. The 5 May 2003 petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, is grounded on these arguments.

In the opinion of the petitioner, after it had been established in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service that the list of unified positions of state servants of municipal institutions (and in such a list—the levels and categories of positions of state servants of municipal institutions) is confirmed by the Seimas by means of a resolution, and after the confirmation of the list of unified positions of state servants of municipal institutions (and in such a list—the levels and categories of positions of state servants of municipal institutions) by such Seimas resolution, the municipality may not establish in its budget higher work remuneration for state servants of municipal institutions than that calculated subsequent to the list of unified positions confirmed by the Seimas resolution. Thus, the Seimas interferes with and violates the constitutional right granted solely to the municipality to form and confirm its budget (Paragraph 1 of Article 121 and Paragraph 1 of Article 127 of the Constitution), and it also violates Paragraph 2 of Article 120 of the Constitution whereby municipalities shall act freely and independently within their competence, which shall be established by the Constitution and laws.

In the opinion of the petitioner, the Seimas, having adopted the Resolution (No. IX-992) “On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions” of 27 June 2002, did not have any legal grounds to adopt, on 10 December 2002, the Resolution (No. IX-1244) “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions’”, whereby the categories of positions of state servants of municipal institutions were changed—they were diminished. The Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1244) “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions’” of 10 December 2002 provided municipal administrations with the basis to diminish categories of positions of the state servants who were ranked in maximum high categories of positions. As the work remuneration of state servants depends on the size of the category of the position (Article 24 of the Law on the State Service), the diminishment of the category is automatic reduction of the work remuneration of state servants. The petitioner maintains that the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1244) “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions’” of 10 December 2002 is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution, since it does not provide to state servants the same guarantees in case of reduction of the work remuneration that the other employees (persons working under labour contracts) enjoy.

The petitioner maintains that the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1244) “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions’” of 10 December 2002 violates the legitimate expectations of state servants to receive the work remuneration under the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-992) “On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions” of 27 June 2002, it is damaging for the stability of the state service, since the person, who enters into the state service or who works in the state service, cannot be certain that in the future his work remuneration will not be reduced. Besides, under such legal regulation, the state servant cannot assume long-term financial liabilities. This also denies the striving for an open, just and harmonious civil society entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution.

6. The 7 May 2003 petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, concerning the compliance of the provisions of Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service and those of the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002, which limit the amount of the work remuneration of state servants by taking account of the demand of funds calculated by the establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants, which exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget for a respective year with the principles of an open, just and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution, is grounded on these arguments.

The petitioner had doubts whether the limitation on the amount of paid work remuneration of state servants by not paying the sum of the entire calculated work remuneration to the persons is not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law. The petitioner believes that the impugned provisions of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service and the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 violate Article 23 of the Constitution which consolidates inviolability of property and protection of the rights of ownership, Article 48 of the Constitution which consolidates the right of a human being to just pay for work, and the principle of the equality of persons before the law (Article 29 of the Constitution), since they create an opportunity for state servants of the same category, but who work in different institutions, to receive extra pay of different amounts, which are dependent on whether budgetary appropriations for work remuneration assigned to these institutions are sufficient or not, and, thus, they discriminate certain state servants with respect to the others, as work remuneration of different amount is paid to state servants of the same categories for analogous work.

7. The 7 May 2003 petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, concerning the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 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 the provisions of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, which regulate calculation and payment of state pensions of officials and servicemen according to the work remuneration of officials and servicemen valid at the month of payment of the pension for the office that they used to hold at the time of retirement, and which do not provide for a prohibition on reducing work remuneration for the month for which the state pension of officials and servicemen is calculated and paid, with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 52 of the Constitution, and concerning the compliance of the provisions of Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, which permit only the Ministry of National Defence, when it grants state pensions of officials and servicemen, to calculate their work remuneration on the basis of the resolutions of the Government in which work remuneration of servicemen is established prior to the entry into effect of the law regulating work remuneration of servicemen, with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, Article 29 and Item 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution, as well as Paragraph 1 of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 of Article 12 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 based on these arguments.

The petitioner had doubts whether the establishment of the amount of paid state pension of officials and servicemen according to their work remuneration valid at the month of payment of the pension for the office that they used to hold at the time of retirement, and the absence of the prohibition on reducing work remuneration for the month for which the state pension of officials and servicemen is calculated and paid do not violate the constitutional principles of an open, just and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law. In the opinion of the petitioner, the recipient of the pension loses an opportunity to receive the state pension of officials and servicemen calculated under the most favourable conditions and part of pensionary payments belonging to him. Such legal regulation violates the right of the person to ownership and the state guaranteed right of a citizen to receive pension. The petitioner had doubts whether Paragraph 1 of Article 7 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 the provisions of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, which regulate calculation and payment of state pensions of officials and servicemen according to the work remuneration of officials and servicemen valid at the month of payment of the pension for the office that they used to hold at the time of retirement, and which do not provide for a prohibition on reducing work remuneration for the month for which the state pension of officials and servicemen is calculated and paid, are not in conflict, as to their content, with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 52 of the Constitution.

In the opinion of the petitioner, the impugned Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations, providing for an exception for the Ministry of National Defence when it grants state pensions of officials and servicemen, grants a privilege to persons, who used to serve in the system of this ministry, if compared with persons, who used to serve in other institutions, therefore, the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law and the equality of persons before the law are violated. The petitioner notes that the legislature, by commissioning the Government to confirm the Regulations, did not transfer a duty to the Government to provide for exceptions and grant privileges to a concrete institution.

III

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court’s hearing, written explanations were received from the representatives of the Seimas, a party concerned, who were P. Papovas, a member of the Seimas, Daiva Petrylaitė, a senior consultant to the Law Department of the Office of the Seimas, J. Meškienė, a senior consultant to the same department, and the representative of the Government, a party concerned, who was D. Žilinskas, Director of the Law Department of the Ministry of the Interior.

1. The representative of the Seimas, a party concerned, D. Petrylaitė submitted explanations concerning the 5 November 2001 petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court.

1.1. The representative of the party concerned pointed out that it is not clear from the petition of the petitioner as to the compliance of which wording of Paragraph 12 of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service with the Constitution is doubtful to the petitioner. According to the representative of the party concerned, the impugned provision was absent altogether in Article 62 (wording of 8 July 1999) of the Law on the State Service in its first wording. Until 5 November 2001, when the petitioner decided to apply to the Constitutional Court with a petition, the Seimas, on 29 August 2000, adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on the State Service, whereby it supplemented Article 62 of the Law on the State Service with Paragraph 12, while on 21 November 2000 the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending Articles 7, 17, 21, 33, 43, 50, 55, 56, 62, 66, 69, 71, 76 and 78 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service and Annexes 1 and 2 Thereof, whereby it amended aforesaid Paragraph 12 of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service. The representative of the party concerned indicated that in Paragraph 12 of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service in its wordings of 29 August 2000 and 21 November 2000, career state servants of municipal administration were prohibited from being members of the council of the municipality in which they were holding office.

1.2. According to D. Petrylaitė, the provision of Paragraph 7 of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government which is impugned in the petition of the petitioner, was established when the Seimas, on 25 September 2001, adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 11, 15, 17, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 36, and 37 of the Law on Local Self-government. According to D. Petrylaitė, it is clear from the arguments of the petition of the petitioner that the petitioner had doubts as to the compliance of the provision of Paragraph 7 (wording of 25 September 2001) of the Law on Local Self-government that the municipal administrator, under the procedure established in the Law of State Service, appoints and releases municipal civil servants and state employees as well as heads of establishments rendering public services, coordinates and controls their work, performs other functions of personnel administration assigned to him by the Law on the State Service, with the Constitution. In the opinion of D. Petrylaitė, the municipal administrator, on the grounds of this provision, had to release from office the career civil servants who, being members of the municipal council, lost the status of the state servant or who decided to resign from the office of a state servant.

1.3. In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, the impugned provisions of the Law on the State Service and the Law on Local Self-government do not establish limitations on citizens to be a candidate to the representative institution (municipal council) of a respective community. Alongside, D. Petrylaitė emphasised that these laws establish certain limitations on the persons who have been elected to municipal councils, as their members have to adopt decisions by strictly dissociating themselves from individual interests. D. Petrylaitė pointed out that the impugned legal norms prevent a situation, where the same person who is a member of the representative municipal institution and who at the same time holds office of a civil servant at the same municipality could adopt decisions that may be influential on both the position that he is holding and the persons that appointed him, or adoption of such decision may be determined. According to the representative of the party concerned, legal acts can establish certain requirements to a person, who wishes to take certain jobs or earn his own living by professional activities: in an analogous manner, one should assess the provisions of laws limiting opportunities of persons to take several jobs at the same time or hold several offices which in the content clearly imply possible conflicts of interests.

1.4. In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, Paragraph 12 of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service and Paragraph 7 of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government are not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 33 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

2. The representative of the Government, a party concerned, D. Žilinskas, presented his written explanations concerning the 21 November 2002 petition of the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, and the 7 May 2003 petition of the Vilnius Regional Court, a petitioner, to the extent that the petitioner requests an investigation into whether the provisions of the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002, which limit the amount of the work remuneration of state servants by taking account of the demand of funds calculated by the establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants, which exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget for a respective year are not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of an open, just and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

2.1. In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the Law on the State Service that the positional salary is established for the category of the position and is the same for all the positions in the same category does not mean that all state servants of the same category must receive the same work remuneration. This also stems from Article 23 of the Law on the State Service providing for the structure of the work remuneration of a state servant. The system of work remuneration established in the Law on the State Service links the size of work remuneration not only with the positional salary but also with additional and extra pay which every state servant can receive.

The representative of the party concerned noted that in the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 the indexation coefficient is not expressed in a number form, therefore, it is impossible to assume from the content of the legal norm itself that by applying the Rules the work remuneration of state servants could either increase or decrease. The Government did not provide for an obligation to either decrease or increase the work remuneration of state servants in state and municipal institutions and establishments, nor did it establish any situation of concrete state servants, which could be treated as a different one if compared with other state servants.

The representative of the party concerned pointed out that the Rules established two formulas: (1) that of calculation of the indexation coefficient; (2) that of calculation of work remuneration. The first formula established calculation of the indexation coefficient and was not linked with either the calculation of the positional salary nor of that of the work remuneration. The second formula established the calculation of the work remuneration of state servants and could be applied in a concrete state or municipal institution or establishment while taking account of the funds assigned to work remuneration. However, this formula did not exert any influence on the positional salary, which was established under Article 24 of the Law on the State Service and the Annex to the Law on the State Service. Under this formula, it was possible to define more precisely the final work remuneration, which, in view of certain circumstances, may be different also to state servants holding the same position. Therefore, in the opinion of D. Žilinskas, in the course of application of this formula, the requirement of Paragraph 2 of Article 24 of the Law on the State Service that the positional salary of all state servants holding the same position should be the same was not violated.

D. Žilinskas noted that the appropriations for work remuneration in the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and municipal budgets are confirmed by the Seimas by means of a law. The Seimas established in Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service that in 2002 work remuneration for state servants is paid from the appropriations established for 2002. By such legal regulation, the legislature established a transition period of the introduction of a new system of calculation and payment of the work remuneration of state servants, alongside, he did not establish procedures for implementation of this transition period, nor did he provide for additional funds to implement this system in 2002. Under Item 6 of Article 12 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service the legislature commissioned the Government to adopt all legal acts necessary for implementation of the Law on the State Service. Thus, the Government was granted the right of discretion as regards decisions designated for implementation of the provisions of the law. The Government had to ensure the implementation of the Law on the State Service and the execution of the State Budget at the same time.

The representative of the party concerned pointed out that the Rules did not establish any alternative procedure of calculation of the work remuneration of state servants, they were designed for implementation of the provisions of Chapter VI of the Law on the State Service and Item 6 of Article 12 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service. According to D. Žilinskas, the Rules do not provide for any preferences or privileges, thus, they are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 24 of the Law on the State Service.

D. Žilinskas emphasised that the formulas provided for in the Rules could be applied only in case there was the condition specified in Item 1 of the Rules, i.e. if the demand of the funds of the second half-year of 2002 for work remuneration of state servants exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration of state servants confirmed in the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and municipal budgets. Thus, the application of the Rules was linked with a special situation in the state, when there was objective lack of funds. The representative of the party concerned believes that there is not any clear legal basis to unconditionally relate work remuneration with ownership, let alone identify them with each other. The Rules do not establish a concrete amount of work remuneration for concrete persons. Meanwhile, the money (cash or electronic money) which the person has lawfully received as work remuneration have characteristics of ownership. D. Žilinskas noted that the Government did not establish any obligation to either decrease or increase the remuneration for state servants in state and municipal institutions and establishments, due to this it did not create any preconditions for violations of the human right to receive just work remuneration and social protection in case of unemployment. Quite to the contrary: while taking account of the lack of funds, the Government was indirectly seeking to protect such constitutional values as the opportunity of each human being to freely choose a job and the right to have proper, safe and healthy working conditions. In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, the Rules are not in conflict with Articles 23 and 48 of the Constitution.

2.2. The representative of the party concerned indicated that the Rules were applied in the course of paying pays for work (work remuneration, vacation and severance pays, etc.) which are paid from the fund of work remuneration when the demand for required funds exceeded the confirmed appropriations. D. Žilinskas noted that the list of cases of application of these Rules was final and could not be interpreted in a broadened manner by making reference to the legal regulation of the legal regulation of state pensions of officials.

D. Žilinskas asserted that under Article 5 of the Law on the State Service this law is not applied to servicemen of professional military service and prosecutors. Thus, the provisions of the substatutory legal acts implementing the Law on the State Service, i.e. including those of the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002, are not applicable to them, either.

3. The representative of the Seimas, a party concerned, P. Papovas presented written explanations concerning the 3 April 2003 petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court.

The representative of the party concerned indicated that the positional salary of the state servant is established according to the category of the position and is the same for all positions of the same category. Meanwhile, extra and additional pay may be differentiated according to the working conditions, the amount of work and other factors. This differentiation must be grounded, i.e. it may be established only under the indicated working conditions, doing an additional job, etc.

According to the representative of the party concerned, the right to just pay for work entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution means not only a right to the same remuneration for the same work, but the right of each employee to individual assessment of his work. Only such assessment may ensure the right to just pay for work provided for in Article 48 of the Constitution. In order to realise this right, the assessment of official activity of state servants is provided for in the Law on the State Service. In the opinion of P. Papovas, the provisions of Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service, regulating a constituent part of the work remuneration of state servants, extra pay, are not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of an open, just, harmonious civil society and a state under the rule of law, as well as Articles 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

4. The representative of the Seimas, a party concerned, J. Meškienė presented written explanations concerning the 18 April 2003 petition of the Alytus District Local Court, a petitioner.

4.1. In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, the provision of Paragraph 6 (wording of 4 July 2002) of Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service, even if it could be regarded as a limiting one in the civil case of the claimant on use of one’s licence unhindered, is not in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution, since a licence should be assessed not as an item of ownership, but merely as a means for implementation of certain rights (including the right of ownership) of a person.

4.2. J. Meškienė noted that state servants must avoid the conflict between public and private interests. The legal regulation of Item 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on the State Service, establishing a certain activity that is incompatible with the state service, should be construed as one of the ways to avoid the conflict between society’s (public) and private interests. Such legal regulation related with the state service is necessary in a democratic society. According to J. Meškienė, the provision of Paragraph 6 (wording of 4 July 2002) of Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service that the state servants who practice medicine must end this practice till 1 January 2003 and the prohibition established in Item 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on the State Service to coordinate the state service with other work (professional) activity are not in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution.

4.3. The representative of the party concerned pointed out that the freedom of a human being to choose a job and business, as established in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, does not mean that the state service cannot be defined in terms of certain requirements and limitations that are necessary to properly perform the functions of the service. J. Meškienė believes that the impugned provisions of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service are not in conflict with Article 48 of the Constitution.

5. The representative of the Seimas, a party concerned, P. Papovas presented written explanations concerning the 5 May 2003 petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner.

P. Papovas noted that the impugned provisions of Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service establish the interaction between state governance and local self-government. The list of unified positions of state servants of municipal institutions regulated by the Law on the State Service ensures the principle of the equality of all persons before the law, the court and other state institution entrenched in Article 29 of the Constitution. Paragraph 5 of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service provides that the municipal council shall confirm the maximum number of positions of state servants in the municipal institutions. The right of municipalities to independently establish the number of state servants, their positions, and the structure of the municipal administration, guarantees the independence of local self-government. According to the representative of the party concerned, the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-992) “On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions” of 27 June 2002 and the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1244) “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions’” of 10 December 2002 merely established the list of unified positions of state servants of municipal institutions and established levels and categories of these positions, however, they did not establish the position or category of a concrete person. The Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service prescribed that the state servants’ evaluation commission assigns a concrete position to positions of state servants and submits them to the head of the state or municipal institution or establishment for confirmation. In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, Article 8 of the Law on the State Service, the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-992) “On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions” of 27 June 2002 and the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1244) “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions’” of 10 December 2002 are not in conflict with Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Article 120, Paragraph 1 of Article 121 and Article 121 of the Constitution.

6. The representative of the Seimas, a party concerned, P. Papovas, presented written explanations concerning the 7 May 2003 petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, to the extent that the petitioner requests an investigation into whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service and the provisions of the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002, which limit the amount of the work remuneration of state servants by taking account of the demand of funds calculated by the establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants, which exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget for a respective year, are not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of an open, just and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

The representative of the party concerned pointed out that the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service was adopted on 23 April 2002, officially published on 4 May 2002 and went into effect on 1 July 2002. In the opinion of P. Papovas, this circumstance is of importance, since the amendments to the state service had been published in advance. It was established in Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service that the work remuneration established in Chapter VI of the Law on the State Service is paid from the work remuneration appropriations confirmed in the 2002 state and municipal budgets. On 10 December 2002, the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 123-5534) was adopted and as of 1 January 2003 this provision was amended and it was prescribed that the work remuneration established in Chapter VI of the Law on the State Service is paid from the work remuneration appropriations confirmed in the state and municipal budgets of a respective year. If the demand of funds calculated by the state or municipal institution or establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants for work remuneration for state servants exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and municipal budgets for a respective year, the work remuneration of state servants will be calculated according to corresponding rules of the calculation of the work remuneration of state servants, which are confirmed by the Government, however, the positional salary of a state servant cannot be smaller than that received by him until 30 June 2002. According to the representative of the party concerned, these provisions of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service did not deteriorate the legal situation of state servants and did not diminish their actual positional salary that they used to receive prior to 30 June 2002. In the opinion of P. Papovas, the provisions of Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service and those of the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002, which limit the amount of the work remuneration of state servants by taking account of the demand of funds calculated by the establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants, which exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget for a respective year, are not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of an open, just and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

7. The representative of the Seimas, a party concerned, P. Papovas presented written explanations concerning the 7 May 2003 petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, to the extent that the petitioner requests an investigation into whether (1) Paragraph 1 of Article 7 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 the provisions of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, which regulate calculation and payment of state pensions of officials and servicemen according to the work remuneration of officials and servicemen valid at the month of payment of the pension for the office that they used to hold at the time of retirement, and which do not provide for a prohibition on reducing work remuneration for the month for which the state pension of officials and servicemen is calculated and paid, are not in conflict, as to their content, with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 52 of the Constitution; (2) the provisions of Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, which permit only the Ministry of National Defence, when it grants state pensions of officials and servicemen, to calculate their work remuneration on the basis of the resolutions of the Government in which work remuneration of servicemen is established prior to the entry into effect of the law regulating work remuneration of servicemen, are not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, Article 29 and Item 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution, as well as Paragraph 1 of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 of Article 12 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.

7.1. The representative of the party concerned pointed out that the provisions regulating the amount of the work remuneration of a state servant, the procedure of its establishment and payment, as well as the procedure of granting and payment of extra and additional pay, are not a matter of regulation by means of the laws regulating pensionary legal relations, therefore, the provisions, which would regulate the conditions and procedure of the increasing and decreasing of work remuneration, are not a matter of regulation by 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 or by other laws regulating pensionary legal relations, either. These social relations are regulated in the laws regulating the state service relations, therefore, according to P. Papovas, there are no grounds to see any gaps in legal regulation of work remuneration, let alone in the laws regulating pensionary relations. In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the said law and the provisions of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, which regulate calculation and payment of state pensions of officials and servicemen according to the work remuneration of officials and servicemen valid at the month of payment of the pension for the office that they used to hold at the time of retirement, and which do not provide for a prohibition on reducing work remuneration for the month for which the state pension of officials and servicemen is calculated and paid, are not in conflict, as to their content, with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, and Articles 23, 29 and 52 of the Constitution.

7.2. P. Papovas noted that the impugned Item 9 of the Regulations was established in order to guarantee the calculation of the work remuneration of officials and servicemen which was prior to the entry into effect 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 (prior to 1 January 1995). The rules of Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations are of one-off application. If they had not been established and if one had begun to newly grant pensions of officials and servicemen as from 1 January 1995, one would not have been able to grant the pension of an official or serviceman, since it would not have been possible to establish one element, work remuneration, necessary to calculate the pension. The representative of the party concerned pointed out that at present these provisions de facto are not applied. According to P. Papovas, the impugned rules of Item 9 of the Regulations establish the procedure of establishment of work remuneration for the time of service, which is included into the time of service after which the pension of an official or serviceman is granted, established in 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. The impugned Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations should be linked with the provisions 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, but not with Articles 7 and 12 of the same law. Therefore, in the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, the provisions of Section 5 of Article 9 of the Regulations in their content are not in conflict with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, Article 29 and Item 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution, as well as Paragraph 1 of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 of Article 12 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.

8. The representative of the Government, a party concerned, D. Žilinskas presented written explanations as concerns the 7 May 2003 petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, to the extent that the petitioner requests an investigation into whether the provisions of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, which regulate calculation and payment of state pensions of officials and servicemen according to the work remuneration of officials and servicemen valid at the month of payment of the pension for the office that they used to hold at the time of retirement, and which do not provide for a prohibition on reducing work remuneration for the month for which the state pension of officials and servicemen is calculated and paid, are not in conflict, as to their content, with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 52 of the Constitution, and whether the provisions of Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, which permit only the Ministry of National Defence, when it grants state pensions of officials and servicemen, to calculate their work remuneration on the basis of the resolutions of the Government in which work remuneration of servicemen is established prior to the entry into effect of the law regulating work remuneration of servicemen, are not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, Article 29 and Item 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution, as well as Paragraph 1 of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 of Article 12 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.

D. Žilinskas noted that the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 that confirmed the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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, was adopted in pursuance with 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. According to the representative of the party concerned, legal regulation of issues of work remuneration is not a matter of this law as well as of the Regulations.

In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, the provisions of Section 2 of Item 9 of the Regulations do not limit the right of officials and servicemen to receive a pension, nor do they provide for an opportunity to limit its payment, thus, they are not in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution. D. Žilinskas noted that the impugned Section 2 of Item 9 of the Regulations does not establish any privileges to any persons nor their exceptional situation in regard to other persons, nor does it provide any restrictions on them, therefore, it is not in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution. The representative of the party concerned also indicated that in Section 2 of Item 9 of the Regulations the procedure for calculation of the amount of pension is established. It does not contain any provisions limiting 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, therefore, the provisions of Section 2 of Item 9 of the Provisions are not in conflict with Article 52 of the Constitution.

The representative of the party concerned noted that it is indicated in Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations as to what the Ministry of National Defence may follow in calculating the work remuneration of officials and servicemen, however, there is no attempt to establish any restrictions on or privileges for the category of these persons. Therefore, in the opinion of D. Žilinskas, Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations is not in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution.

According to the representative of the Government, a party concerned, while implementing its powers stemming directly from the Constitution, was permitted to allow the Ministry of National Defence, when the latter granted state pensions of servicemen under Paragraph 1 of Article 7 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, to calculate their work remuneration on the basis of the resolutions of the Government in which work remuneration of servicemen is established prior to the entry into effect of the law regulating work remuneration of servicemen, and it was equally permitted to adopt such resolutions formerly. Therefore, in the opinion of D. Žilinskas, Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations is not in conflict with Item 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution.

The representative of the party concerned emphasised that the provisions of Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations do not compete with those of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 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. The Regulations particularise the provisions of this law and establish their implementation procedures, while taking account of the situation of persons of certain categories, who are in different situations, and who work in different institutions, when pensions are granted and paid to them. Therefore, in the opinion of D. Žilinskas, the conclusion should be drawn that Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 12 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.

IV

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court’s hearing, written explanations were received from D. Grybauskaitė, the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania, V. Bulovas, the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, R. Brudbergytė, the Secretary of the same ministry, V. Sarapinas, the State Secretary of the Ministry of National Defence of the Republic of Lithuania, R. Kairelis, the State Secretary of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania, V. Rupšys, the Secretary of this ministry, P. Koverovas, the State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, V. Vadapalas, Director General of the European Law Department under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, L. Butautienė, Acting Director of the State Service Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, Assoc. Prof. V. A. Vaičaitis who works at the Faculty of Law, Vilnius University, and Assoc. Prof. S. Šedbaras who works at the Law Faculty of the Law University of Lithuania.

V

1. At the 6 October 2004 Constitutional Court’s hearing, J. Meškienė, the representative of the Seimas, a party concerned, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in her written explanations.

2. At the 6 October 2004 Constitutional Court’s hearing, N. Rudaitis, the representative of the Government, a party concerned, assented to the arguments set forth in the written explanations presented by D. Žilinskas, the representative of the Government, a party concerned.

VI

1. At the 11 November 2004 Constitutional Court’s hearing, N. Rudaitis, the representative of the Government, a party concerned, presented additional explanations.

2. At the 11 November 2004 Constitutional Court’s hearing, the following specialists spoke: V. Žagūnienė, Head of the National Defence and State Safety Programmes Division of the Budget Department of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania, R. Aleksinė, Head of the Organisation and Control Division of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania and R. Berčiūnas, Deputy Chief of the Financial Board of the Police Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation (the 5 November 2001 petition received at the Constitutional Court on 11 November 2001) into whether Paragraph 12 of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service and Paragraph 7 of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government are not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 33 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

2. The Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation (the 21 November 2002 petition received at the Constitutional Court on 4 December 2002) into whether the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 24 of the Law on the State Service.

3. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation (the 3 April 2003 petition received at the Constitutional Court on 4 April 2003) into whether the provisions of Article 26 of the Law on the State Service regulating a constituent part of the work remuneration of state servants, extra pay, which do not particularise the amounts of the extra pay, are not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of an open, just and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

4. The Alytus District Local Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation (the 18 April 2003 petition received at the Constitutional Court on 28 April 2003) into whether Paragraph 6 of Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service and Item 4 of Article 17 and Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 29 of the Law on the State Service are not in conflict with Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

5. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation (the 5 May 2003 petition received at the Constitutional Court on 28 May 2003) into whether Article 8 of the Law on the State Service, the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-992) “On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions” of 27 June 2002 and the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1244) “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions’” of 10 December 2002 are not in conflict with Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Article 120, Paragraph 1 of Article 121 and Article 127 of the Constitution.

6. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation (the 7 May 2003 petition received at the Constitutional Court on 24 May 2003) into whether (1) Paragraph 1 of Article 7 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 the provisions of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, which regulate calculation and payment of state pensions of officials and servicemen according to the work remuneration of officials and servicemen valid at the month of payment of the pension for the office that they used to hold at the time of retirement, and which do not provide for a prohibition on reducing work remuneration for the month for which the state pension of officials and servicemen is calculated and paid, are not in conflict, as to their content, with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 52 of the Constitution; (2) the provisions of Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, which permit only the Ministry of National Defence, when it grants state pensions of officials and servicemen, to calculate their work remuneration on the basis of the resolutions of the Government in which work remuneration of servicemen is established prior to the entry into effect of the law regulating work remuneration of servicemen, are not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, Article 29 and Item 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution, as well as Paragraph 1 of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 of Article 12 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; (3) Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service and the provisions of the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002, which limit the amount of the work remuneration of state servants by taking account of the demand of funds calculated by the establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants, which exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget for a respective year, are not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

7. Summing up the petitions of the petitioners, it should be held that the petitioners request an investigation (to various extent) into the following:

the compliance of Article 8, Article 26 and Paragraph 12 of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service (provisions thereof) with the Constitution;

the compliance of Item 4 of Article 17 and Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 29 of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service with the Constitution;

the compliance of Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service and Paragraph 6 of Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service with the Constitution;

the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 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 with the Constitution;

the compliance of Paragraph 7 of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government with the Constitution;

the compliance of the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-992) “On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions” of 27 June 2002 with the Constitution;

the compliance of the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1244) “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions’” of 10 December 2002 with the Constitution;

the compliance of Item 9 (provisions thereof) of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 with the Constitution and 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;

the compliance of the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 with the Constitution and the Law on the State Service.

8. During the time from the reception of the petitions of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court and the Alytus District Local Court at the Constitutional Court, the legal regulation impugned by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court and the Alytus District Local Court, the petitioners, was amended: some legal acts and/or parts thereof were annulled and/or amended.

Under Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the annulment of the impugned legal act shall be grounds to adopt a decision to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings. In its rulings the Constitutional Court has held many a time that the formula “shall be grounds <…> to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings” of Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court should be construed as establishing the right to the Constitutional Court, in cases when not courts but the other subjects pointed out in Article 106 of the Constitution applied to the Constitutional Court, while taking account of the circumstances of the case, to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings, but not as stipulating that in every case when the impugned legal act was annulled the instituted legal proceedings must be dismissed. Under the Constitution, in the cases when a court considering a certain case applies to the Constitutional Court after it has had doubts concerning the compliance of a law applicable in the case with the Constitution, also concerning the compliance of an act adopted by the Seimas, or an act of the President of the Republic or the Government with the Constitution or laws, the Constitutional Court has a duty to consider the petition of the court regardless of the fact whether or not the impugned law or other legal is valid.

It needs to be emphasised that upon application of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court and the Alytus District Local Court, the petitioners, with the petitions requesting an investigation into whether the impugned provisions are not in conflict with the Constitution and laws, and if the Constitutional Court did not decide upon these issues in essence, the doubts of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court and the Alytus District Local Court, which are considering these cases, whether the impugned provisions were not in conflict with the Constitution would not be removed, thus, in case these provisions were applied, the constitutional rights of persons could be violated.

II

1. The petitioners doubt whether the impugned provisions of the legal acts are not in conflict with, inter alia, the striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law which is entrenched in the Constitution, and the constitutional principles of a just harmonious civil society and a state under the rule of law.

2. The Constitution is integral and directly applicable act (Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Constitution). This is an act of supreme legal force, the supreme law, and the measure of lawfulness and legitimacy of all the other legal acts. In its ruling of 25 May 2004, the Constitutional Court held: “<…> since it is impossible to treat law solely as a text in which expressis verbis certain legal provisions and rules of behaviour are set forth, thus, also, it is impossible to treat the Constitution as a legal reality solely in its textual form. The Constitution may not be understood as an aggregate of explicit provisions only. <…> The nature of the Constitution itself as an act of the supreme legal force, and the idea of the constitutionality imply that the Constitution may not have and has no gaps, so there may not be and there is no such legal regulation established in legal acts of lower legal force which may not be assessed in respect of its compliance with the Constitution. The Constitution as a legal reality is comprised of various provisions, the constitutional norms and the constitutional principles, which are directly consolidated in various formulations of the Constitution or derived from them. Some constitutional principles are entrenched in constitutional norms formulated expressis verbis, others, although not entrenched therein expressis verbis, are reflected in them and are derived from the constitutional norms, as well as from other constitutional principles reflected in these norms, from the entirety of the constitutional legal regulation, from the meaning of the Constitution as the act which consolidates and protects the system of major values of the state community, the civil Nation, and which provides the guidelines for the entire legal system. There may not exist and there is no contradiction between the constitutional principles and the constitutional norms—all the constitutional norms and constitutional principles form a harmonious system. It is the constitutional principles that organise all the provisions of the Constitution into a harmonious entirety, and thus do not permit the existence in the Constitution of internal contradictions or such an interpretation thereof which distorts and denies the essence of any provision of the Constitution, or any value entrenched in and protected by the Constitution. The constitutional principles reveal not only the letter, but also the spirit of the Constitution—the values and objectives entrenched in the Constitution by the Nation which chose certain textual form and verbal expression of its provisions, which defined certain norms of the Constitution, and which explicitly or implicitly established certain constitutional legal regulation. Thus, there may not exist and there is no contradiction not only between the constitutional principles and the constitutional norms, but also between the spirit of the Constitution and the letter of the Constitution: the letter of the Constitution may not be interpreted or applied in a manner which denies the spirit of the Constitution, which may be understood only when perceiving the constitutional legal regulation as an entirety and only upon the evaluation of the purpose of the Constitution as a social contract and an act of the supreme legal force. The spirit of the Constitution is expressed by the entirety of the constitutional legal regulation, all its provisions—both the norms of the Constitution directly set forth in the text of the Constitution, and the principles of the Constitution, including those that originate from the entirety of the constitutional legal regulation and the meaning of the Constitution as an act which consolidates and protects the system of major values of the Nation, and which provides the guidelines for the whole legal system.”

3. In its ruling of 11 July 2002, the Constitutional Court held that the values and strivings enshrined in the Constitution are expressed in the norms and principles of the Constitution. It should be stressed that the constitutional principles express the strivings and values for the consolidation, protection and defence of which the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, which was adopted by the Nation on the 25 October 1992 referendum, is designated. The constitutional order of the Republic of Lithuania is based upon these strivings and values.

In its rulings the Constitutional Court has held more than once that all the provisions of the Constitution are linked to each other and constitute an integral and harmonious system, that there is a balance between the values entrenched in the Constitution, that not a single provision of the Constitution may be interpreted in a manner distorting or denying the content of any other provision of the Constitution, as this would distort the essence of the entire constitutional legal regulation, and disturb the balance between the constitutional values.

Thus, none of the provisions of the Constitution may be construed in a way, whereby any constitutional principle would be denied or distorted, since the strivings and/or values would be denied and/or distorted, which were consolidated by the Nation in the Constitution adopted by it, and which the Nation, the sovereign founder of the State of Lithuania (Article 2 of the Constitution), constitutionally obligated the state (which was created by the Nation) to protect and defend.

Within the context of the case at issue, it should be noted that it is also the constitutional legal regulation established in Articles 23, 29, 33, 48, 52, 120, 121, and 127 of the Constitution (which were indicated by the petitioners) that should be construed in the context of the entire legal regulation established in the Constitution, and which is inseparable from the strivings and values of the Nation expressed in various principles of the Constitution, which are expressed in, and protected and defended by the Constitution.

4. The striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law is declared in the Preamble to the Constitution. The aforementioned striving is one of the strivings of the Nation which adopted the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania in the 25 October 1992 referendum, for achievement of which the Constitution was adopted. In its 11 July 2002 ruling, the Constitutional Court held that the striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law declared in the Preamble to the Constitution is enshrined in various aspects in various provisions of the Constitution, that the striving for a state under the rule of law, enshrined in the Constitution, should be construed inseparably from other provisions of the Constitution, which consolidated the principle of a state under the rule of law, and that the striving for a state under the rule of law is expressed by the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

When construing the content of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court has held more than once in its rulings that the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is a universal principle, upon which the entire legal system of Lithuania and the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania itself are based, that the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law should be construed inseparably from the striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law, which is declared in the Preamble to the Constitution, and that the content of the aforementioned constitutional principle can be detected in various provisions of the Constitution.

5. The essence of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is the rule of law. The constitutional imperative of the rule of law means that freedom of state power is limited by law, to which all the subjects of legal relations, including the law-making subjects, must obey. It should be stressed that the discretion of all the law-making subjects is limited by the supreme law—the Constitution. All the legal acts, decisions of all the state and municipal institutions and officials must be in compliance with and not contradicting to the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court has held that the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law must be followed both in law-making and enforcement of law (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 6 December 2000). The compliance of each institute of law with the Constitution must be evaluated according to how this institute is in compliance with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 11 May 1999).

6. The constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is an especially voluminous constitutional principle, which comprises lots of various interrelated imperatives. Thus, it should be stressed that the content of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law should be disclosed while taking account of various provisions of the Constitution, while evaluating all the values entrenched in, and protected and defended by the Constitution, and while taking account of the content of various other constitutional principles, such as the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution, its integrity and direct applicability, sovereignty of the Nation, democracy, responsible governance, the restriction on the powers of state power and service of state institutions to the people, publicity of law, justice (comprising, inter alia, natural justice), separation of powers, public spirit, equality of persons before the law, court, state institutions and officials, respect to and protection of the human rights and freedoms (comprising, inter alia, the recognition that the human rights and freedoms are of innate nature), coordination of interests of the person and society, secularity of the state and its neutrality in world-view matters, social orientation of the state, social solidarity (comprised with responsibility of everyone for his own fate), and other constitutional principles of no less importance. The constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is consolidated not only by the striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law, which is declared in the Preamble to the Constitution, but, in various aspects, by all the rest of the provisions of the Constitution as well. In its ruling of 19 September 2002, the Constitutional Court held that the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law also embodies the striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and State under the rule of law, which is enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution. The constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law integrates various values enshrined in, and protected and defended by the Constitution, including those, which are expressed by the aforementioned striving.

Thus, the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law may not be construed as the one which is entrenched only in the Preamble to the Constitution, nor may it be identified only with the declared therein striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law. On the other hand, just like the content of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law should be construed without denying any single provision of the Constitution, in the same way none of the provisions of the Constitution—not a single constitutional principle or constitutional norm—may be construed so that the construction would deviate from the requirements of a state under the rule of law which arise from the Constitution, as the content of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, thus, the constitutional concept of a state under the rule of law, would also be distorted or even denied. All the provisions of the Constitutions should be construed in the context of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and the enshrined in the Constitution concept of a state under the rule of law. It is the function of the constitutional doctrine to disclose the content of the concept of a state under the rule of law (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 11 May 1999).

7. In its 25 May 2004 ruling, the Constitutional Court held the following: “It is due to the fact that the Constitution is an integral act, that it is comprised of various provisions—both the constitutional norms, and the constitutional principles—among which there may not exist and there is no contradiction, and which constitute a harmonious system, that the constitutional principles are derived from the entirety of the constitutional legal regulation expressing the spirit of the Constitution, and from the meaning of the Constitution as the act consolidating and protecting the system of the major values of the state community, the civil Nation, and which provides the guidelines for the entire legal system, and due to the fact that the letter of the Constitution may not be interpreted or applied in the manner which denies the spirit of the Constitution, the Constitution may not be interpreted only literally by applying the sole linguistic (verbal) method. When interpreting the Constitution, one must apply various methods of interpretation of law: systemic, the one of general principles of law, logical, teleological, the one of intentions of the legislature, the one of precedents, historical, comparative, etc. Only such comprehensive interpretation of the Constitution may provide conditions for realisation of the purpose of the Constitution as a social contract and an act of the supreme legal force, and for ensuring that the meaning of the Constitution will not be deviated from, that the spirit of the Constitution will not be denied, and that the values upon which the Nation has based the Constitution adopted by it will be consolidated in reality.”

The construction of all the provisions of the Constitution in the context of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is a necessary pre-requisite for exhaustive construction of the Constitution.

8. In this context, it should be noted that an investigation into the compliance of legal acts (parts thereof) with the striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and a state under the rule of law, enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, implies an investigation into their compliance with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. It should also be noted that the non-compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with any imperative dictated by any constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law—the universal constitutional principle—in which various values enshrined in, and protected and defended by the Constitution, are integrated (the element of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law) means that the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is violated as well.

9. In its rulings the Constitutional Court has held more than once that the principle of a state under the rule of law which is entrenched in the Constitution, in addition to other requirements also implies that human rights and freedoms must be ensured, that all the institutions exercising state power and other state and municipal institutions, and all the officials must act on the basis of law and must obey the Constitution and law, that the Constitution bears the supreme legal force, and that all the legal acts must be in compliance 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. The principle of legal security is one of the basic elements of the entrenched in the Constitution principle of a state under the rule of law, which means the obligation of a state to ensure the certainty and stability of the legal regulation, to protect the rights of the subjects of legal relations, as well as the acquired rights, to respect the legitimate interests and legitimate expectations. If the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and legal security were not ensured, the trust of the person in the state and law would not be guaranteed. The state must fulfil all its obligations to the person.

In its rulings of 4 July 2003 and 3 December 2003, the Constitutional Court held that one of the elements of the principle of legitimate expectations is the protection of rights which were acquired under the Constitution as well as laws and other legal acts which are not in conflict with the Constitution. It 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 from 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.

The constitutional protection of legitimate interests of the person should be construed inseparably from the entrenched in the Constitution principle of justice, the entrenched in the Constitution protection of the acquired rights, the necessity to ensure the trust of a person, who obeys law and follows the requirements of the laws, in the state and law. The trust of the person in the state and law as well as the protection of legitimate interests, as constitutional values, are inseparable from the constitutionality of legal acts and presumption of legitimacy. Legal acts (parts thereof) are considered to be in compliance with the Constitution and legitimate until the moment, when, upon the procedure established by the Constitution and the Law on the Constitutional Court, they are ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution (substatutory legal acts—in conflict with the Constitution and/or the laws). Thus, until the moment when legal acts (parts thereof), upon the procedure established by the Law on the Constitutional Court, are ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution (substatutory legal acts—in conflict with the Constitution and/or the laws) or until the moment when, upon the established procedure, they are recognised as no longer effective, the legal regulation established therein is compulsory for respective subjects of legal relations. The person who obeys law, who follows the requirements of the laws, is protected and defended by the Constitution. A failure to pay heed to this provision would mean a deviation from the principle of justice which is enshrined in the Constitution as well.

It should be stressed that there may be factual situations, where the person who meets the conditions established in legal acts, under the said legal acts acquired particular rights and, therefore, gained expectations, which could be considered by this person to be reasonably legitimate during the period of validity of the said legal acts, therefore, he could reasonably expect that if he obeys law, and fulfils the requirements of the laws, his expectations will be held legitimate by the state and will be defended and protected. Even the legal acts which, on the basis and upon the procedure established in the Constitution and the laws, are later ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution (substatutory legal acts—in conflict with the Constitution and/or the laws), may give rise to such expectations. It is worth noticing in this context that there may also be factual situations, where the person has already fulfilled his rights and obligations arising from the legal act which was later ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution (substatutory legal acts—as being in conflict with the Constitution and/or the laws) in regard to other persons and after that, due to this, the aforementioned other persons gained particular expectations, the defence and protection of which by the state they could reasonably expect, as well. It should be especially stressed that in certain cases quite a long period of time may pass from the moment of the emergence of such expectations and recognition of respective legal acts as being in conflict with the Constitution (substatutory legal acts—as being in conflict with the Constitution and/or the laws). The imperative of the balance between the constitutional values, the constitutional requirements of legal certainty and legal security, the enshrined in the Constitution protection of the acquired rights, and the presumption of constitutionality and legitimacy of legal acts pre-determines, inter alia, the fact that the Constitution generally does not prevent from protecting and defending in certain special cases also such acquired rights of the person arising from the legal acts that are ruled later to be in conflict with the Constitution (substatutory legal acts—in conflict with the Constitution and/or the laws), which, if not defended or protected, would result in greater harm to the person, other persons, society or the state, than the harm inflicted in case of total non-defence or non-protection or partial defence or protection of the said rights. When deciding whether the acquired rights gained by the person during the period of the validity of a legal act which was ruled later to be in conflict with the Constitution (substatutory legal acts—as being in conflict with the Constitution and/or the laws) should be protected and defended or not (and if so, to what extent), in each case it is necessary to find out whether in case of failure to protect and defend such acquired rights, other values protected by the Constitution would not be violated, and whether the balance between the values entrenched in and protected and defended by the Constitution would not be disturbed. In case legal acts are ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution (substatutory legal acts—in conflict with the Constitution and/or the laws) where, due to this, certain persons who have obeyed law, followed the laws and respected the state and its law before the said recognition can suffer negative consequences, the legislature bears the constitutional duty to evaluate all the circumstances related with this and, if necessary, establish such legal regulation, which would provide an opportunity in the aforementioned extraordinary cases to fully or partially protect and defend the acquired rights of the persons who obeyed law and followed the requirements of the laws, arising from the legal acts which were later ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution (substatutory legal acts—in conflict with the Constitution and/or the laws), so that the principle of justice enshrined in the Constitution would not be deviated from, too.

At the same, it is worth stressing that the Constitution does not protect and defend the acquired rights of persons which are privileges in their essence; the protection and defence of privileges would mean that the constitutional principle of equal rights of persons and the constitutional principle of justice, the imperative of a harmonious civil society enshrined in the Constitution, and, therefore, the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, are violated.

10. The jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court stated more than once the imperative arising from the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and other provisions of the Constitution that the person who believes that his rights and freedoms have been violated has an absolute right to an independent and impartial trial, which would settle the dispute. The right of the person to apply to court also implies his right to due process of law, this is an essential condition of administration of justice. It should be emphasised that the constitutional right of the person to apply to court may not be artificially restricted or its exercising may not be unreasonably aggravated.

11. The constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law implies various requirements for the legislature and other law-making subjects; the law-making subjects may pass legal acts only without exceeding their powers; the requirements established in legal acts must be based on the provisions of general type (legal norms and principles) which can be applied in regard to all the specified subjects of respective legal relations; the differentiated legal regulation must be based only on objective differences of the situation of subjects of public relations regulated by respective legal acts; in order to ensure that the subjects of legal relations know what the legal norms require from them, the legal norms must be established in advance, the legal acts must be published officially, they must be public and accessible; the legal regulation established in laws and other legal acts must be clear, easy to understand, consistent, formulas in the legal acts must be explicit, consistency and internal harmony of the legal system must be ensured, the legal acts may not contain any provisions, which at the same time regulate the same public relations in a different manner; in order that subjects of legal relations could orient their behaviour according to the requirements of law, the legal regulation must be relatively stable; the legal acts may not require the impossible (lex non cogit ad impossibilia); the force of legal acts is prospective, while retrospective validity of the laws and other legal acts is not permitted (lex retro non agit) unless the legal act mitigates the situation of the subject of legal relations and does not injure other subjects of legal relations by the same (lex benignior retro agit); violations of law, for which liability is established in legal acts, must be clearly defined; when setting legal restrictions and liability for violations of law, one must pay heed to the requirement of reasonableness and the principle of proportionality, according to which the established legal measures must be necessary in a democratic society and suitable for achieving legitimate and universally important objectives (there must be a balance between the objectives and measures), they may not restrict the rights of the person more than it is necessary in order to achieve the said objectives, and if these legal measures are related to the sanctions for the violation of law, in such case the aforementioned sanctions must be proportionate to the committed violation of law; when legally regulating public relations it is compulsory to pay heed to the requirements of natural justice comprising, inter alia, the necessity to ensure the equality of persons before the law, the court and state institutions and officials; when issuing legal acts, one must pay heed to procedural law-making requirements, including those established by the law-making subject itself; etc.

The requirement for the legislature arises out of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and other constitutional imperatives to pay heed to the hierarchy of legal acts which originates from the Constitution. This requirement means, inter alia, that it is prohibited to regulate the public relations through legal acts of lower legal force, which may be regulated only by legal acts of higher legal force. This also means that it is prohibited to establish in legal acts of lower legal force any such legal regulation, which would compete with the one established in the legal acts of higher legal force. Within the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it is worth emphasising that through a substatutory legal act norms of the law are realised, therefore, such a substatutory legal act may not replace the law itself or create any new legal norms of general character which would compete with the norms of the law, as the supremacy of laws in respect to substatutory acts which is established in the Constitution would thus be violated (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 21 August 2002); it should also be stressed that substatutory legal acts cannot be in conflict with laws, constitutional laws, and the Constitution, that substatutory legal acts must be adopted on the basis of laws, that a substatutory legal act is an act of application of legislative norms irrespective of whether this act is of one-off (ad hoc) application, or of permanent validity (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 30 December 2003).

There is no delegated law-making in Lithuania (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 26 October 1995, 19 December 1996, 3 June 1999, and 5 March 2004), therefore, the Seimas—the legislature—cannot commission the Government or other institutions to regulate, by means of substatutory legal acts, the legal relations which should be regulated according to the Constitution by means of laws, while the Government may not accept such commissioning. These relations may not be regulated by means of substatutory acts of the Seimas as well.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it is worth emphasising that according to the Constitution the legal regulation related to the definition of the content of rights and freedoms of the person or consolidation of guarantees of their exercising may be established only by law. On the other hand, in the cases where the Constitution does not require that particular relations linked with the rights of the person and their exercising are regulated by law, these relations may also be regulated by substatutory act—acts which regulate process (procedural) relations of exercising the rights of the person, the procedure of exercising individual rights of the person, etc. However, under no circumstances substatutory acts may establish any such legal regulation of the relations linked with the rights of the person and exercising thereof, which would compete with the one established in the law.

It should also be stressed that such failure to follow the form of the legal act, when it is required in the Constitution that certain relations should be regulated by law, still they are regulated by substatutory act (irrespective of the fact whether these relations in any aspect are additionally regulated by means of a law the legal regulation established in which is challenged by the legal regulation established in a substatutory act, or of the fact that no law regulates such relations at all), may become sufficient reasoning for pronouncing such a substatutory act unconstitutional. Under the Constitution, it is the Constitutional Court that decides whether substatutory legal acts of the Seimas, the President of the Republic, and the Government in their form are not in conflict with the Constitution. When making such a decision, in each case the Constitutional Court evaluates all the circumstances of the case, inter alia, the place of the investigated legal regulation in the entire legal system, its objective, as well as intentions of the law-making subject, development of the legal regulation of respective relations and its changes before the investigated legal act was issued (legislative history), etc.

It should also be stressed that in cases where substatutory legal acts are ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution in their form (due to the fact that they regulate the relations which may only be regulated by law) and may no longer be applied, it is necessary to pay heed to the requirement arising from the Constitution to evaluate whether other values protected by the Constitution will not be violated, or whether the balance between the values enshrined in, and protected and defended by the Constitution will not be disturbed in case of failure to protect and defend the acquired rights of persons, which originated during the period of validity of the said substatutory legal acts. In these extraordinary cases the legislature, having evaluated all the circumstances and having found that it is necessary, bears the constitutional duty to establish such legal regulation, which would provide the possibility of fully or partially protecting and defending the rights of the persons who obeyed law, followed the requirements of the laws, and trusted in the state and its law, arising from the legal acts which were ruled later to be in conflict with the Constitution in their form (due to the fact that they regulated the relations which may only be regulated by law), and which would ensure that the principle of justice enshrined in the Constitution will not be deviated from.

12. The constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law must be followed when applying law as well. When applying law, one must pay heed, inter alia, to the following requirements originating from the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, for example: the law-applying institutions must follow the requirement of equal rights of persons; it is not permitted to punish for the same violation of law twice (non bis in idem); liability (sanction, punishment) for violations of law must be established in advance (nullum poena sine lege); an act is not considered to be criminal, if it is not provided for in the law (nullum crimen sine lege), etc. In this context it is worth mentioning also that the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law requires that the jurisdictional and other institutions which apply law be impartial, independent, that they seek to establish the objective truth and that they adopt their decisions only on the grounds of law (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 11 May 1999, 19 September 2000, and 24 January 2003).

It is established in Article 110 of the Constitution that the judge may not apply a law, which is in conflict with the Constitution. When account is taken of the hierarchy of legal acts which originates from the Constitution, this provision of the Constitution means that the judge may not apply a substatutory legal act, which is in conflict with the Constitution, too. Moreover, he may not apply such a substatutory legal act, which is in conflict with the law. On the other hand, the aforementioned provision of the Constitution reflects the constitutional principle, one of the basic elements of the enshrined in the Constitution principle of a state under the rule of law, that a legal act, which is in conflict with a legal act of higher legal force, may not be applied.

It is worth noting that the laws must be enforced until the moment when they are changed or revoked or, upon the procedure established by the Law on the Constitutional Court, ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution (substatutory legal acts—in conflict with the Constitution and/or the laws). In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it is especially worth emphasising that until the moment when the laws are changed or, upon the procedure established by the Law on the Constitutional Court, are ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution, all the subjects of legal relations, consequently, the Government inclusive, must execute and apply them according to their competence; it is not allowed that the Government, which must itself apply laws and/or ensure that other state and municipal institutions and officials apply them, instead of exercising the duties imposed upon it by law and/or ensuring that other state and municipal institutions and officials exercise the duties established by law, by means of its substatutory legal acts establish the legal regulation which would compete with the one established in the laws and which would totally or partially exempt the Government and/or other state and municipal institutions and officials from the fulfilment of the aforementioned duties.

13. It was stated that it is the function of the constitutional doctrine to disclose the content of the concept of a state under the rule of law. According to the Constitution it is only the Constitutional Court who bears the official powers to construe the Constitution (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 30 May 2003, 29 October 2003, 13 May 2004, and 1 July 2004). When investigating the compliance of laws and other legal acts with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court develops the concept of provisions of the Constitution, which is presented in its previous rulings and other acts, and discloses new aspects of the regulation consolidated in the Constitution, which are necessary for investigation of a particular case (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 30 May 2003 and 1 July 2004). The official constitutional doctrine discloses, inter alia, the interrelation of various constitutional provisions, the relationship of their content, the balance between the constitutional values, and the essence of the constitutional legal regulation as a single whole (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 1 July 2004).

Hence, when construing the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and disclosing the content of the concept of a state under the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution, the Constitutional Court forms the official constitutional doctrine of a state under the rule of law and develops it by the same, while construing new aspects of the legal regulation established in the Constitution, which are necessary for investigation of a particular case of constitutional justice.

One of many aspects of the constitutional principle of state under the rule of law (directly related with the constitutional principle of equal rights of persons) is that similar cases must be decided in a similar manner. Therefore, the discretion of the jurisdictional authorities, when deciding disputes and applying law, is limited. In its rulings of 21 July 2001, and 30 May 2003, as well as the decision of 13 February 2004, the Constitutional Court held that the principle of a state under the rule of law which enshrined in the Constitution implies, inter alia, the continuity of jurisprudence.

III

1. All the legal acts (parts thereof) whose compliance with the Constitution and laws is impugned by the petitioners regulate the relations of the state service and/or relations linked with the state service in various aspects.

2. The state is an organisation of the entire society (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 25 November 2002, 4 March 2003, 30 September 2003, 3 December 2003, and 30 December 2003). The state is a political organisation of the entire society, whose power covers all the territory of the state, and which is designated for ensuring human rights and freedoms and guaranteeing the public interest (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 30 December 2003). The imperative of social harmony is consolidated in the Constitution (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 14 January 2002, 3 December 2003, and 5 March 2004). The state, when exercising its functions, must act in the interests of entire society (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 4 March 2003). In order to guarantee the public interest of the entire community of the state, the civil Nation, the state must ensure the execution of public administration and provision of public services.

Article 1 of the Constitution provides: “The State of Lithuania shall be an independent democratic republic.” It is established in Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Law of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Lithuanian State”—the constituent part of the Constitution—that the statement “The State of Lithuania shall be an independent democratic republic” is a constitutional norm of the Republic of Lithuania and a fundamental principle of the state. When construing the provision of Article 1 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court held that in this article of the Constitution the fundamental principles of the State of Lithuania are established: the State of Lithuania is free and independent; the republic is the form of governance of the State of Lithuania; state power must be organised in a democratic way, and there must be a democratic political regime in this country (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 23 February 2000, 18 October 2000, 25 January 2001, and 19 September 2002).

The constitutional requirement that the power of the State of Lithuania should be organised in a democratic way and that the democratic political regime must be in place in the country, is inseparable from the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Constitution, that state institutions serve the people, as well as the provision of Paragraph 2 of this article that the scope of power is limited by the Constitution. The nature of democratic institutes of power is that all persons who implement political will of the people are controlled in varied forms so that this will would not be distorted (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 29 May 1996). In its ruling of 1 July 2004 and its conclusion of 5 November 2004, the Constitutional Court held that the Constitution consolidates the principle of responsible governance. The responsibility of power to society is a principle of the state under the rule of law which is established by the Constitution by providing that state institutions will serve the people, while the citizens shall have the right to run the country either directly or through democratically elected representatives, to criticise the work of state institutions or that of their officials, to lodge complaints against their decisions, as well as by guaranteeing an opportunity for citizens to defend their rights in court, the right of petition, by regulating the procedure for investigation of applications and complaints of citizens etc. (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 11 May 1999).

3. The state exercises its functions through the system of respective establishments, which comprise, first of all, state institutions; the state may exercise its functions to a certain extent through other establishments (other than state institutions), which are assigned (entrusted) according to the laws with exercising particular state functions or which participate in exercising state functions in particular forms and manners defined in the laws. When establishing by law that particular functions to certain extent may be exercised not through the state but other establishments, it is necessary to pay heed to the principles and norms of the Constitution.

4. The system of state institutions comprises various state institutions. The variety of state institutions, their legal status and powers are determined by a variety of functions exercised by the state, particularities of managing the general affairs of the society, organisational and financial possibilities of the state, the content and expediency of the policy implemented during a concrete period of life of the society and development of the state, international obligations of the state, as well as other factors. The Seimas which enjoys the constitutional powers to establish and liquidate state institutions, as well as to set their legal status and powers, is bound by the Constitution.

It is worth emphasising that the notion “state institutions” is employed in the Constitution (Article 8, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 61, Item 5 of Article 67, and Paragraph 1 of Article 104 of the Constitution). The Constitution also names the “institutions of control” (Paragraph 3 of Article 73 of the Constitution), a “special institution of judges provided for by law”, which advises the President of the Republic concerning the appointment of judges, as well as their promotion, transference, or release from office (Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of the Constitution), the “institutions of State power and administration” (Paragraph 1 of Article 114 of the Constitution), the “self-government institutions” (Paragraph 3 of Article 119 of the Constitution). The notion “institution” in the Constitution has also a broader meaning, it constitutes also the name of non-governmental institutions in regard to which particular restrictions, similar to those expressis verbis established in regard to the state and/or its institutions (Paragraph 2 of Article 44 and Paragraph 4 of Article 89 of the Constitution), are established in the Constitution.

When systematically construing the above-mentioned formulas of the Constitution it is obvious that the notion “state institutions” is of general type and it comprises various state institutions through which the state exercises its functions. It was already mentioned that the state institutions comprise a system. This system of state institutions is consolidated in legal acts of diverse legal force. Some state institutions are expressis verbis specified in the Constitution. Other state institutions, according to the Constitution, should be specified by law. A need to establish any other state institutions originates from the necessity to implement state governance, to administer affairs of the state, to ensure the performance of various state functions—the state institutions must be organised in order to perform such functions although their establishment is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution.

Various state institutions are expressis verbis specified in the Constitution: the Seimas; the President of the Republic; the Government; the Constitutional Court; the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, regional and local courts; the Seimas ombudsmen; the National Audit Office; the Bank of Lithuania, the State Defence Council; the Commander of the Armed Forces; the Office of the Prosecutor General; the Central Electoral Commission. Some state institutions are consolidated in the Constitution without specifying their exact names: ministries, security service; a special commission of judges which advises the President of the Republic concerning the appointment of judges, as well as their promotion, transference, or release from office; territorial prosecutor’s offices; representatives of the Government, who supervise whether municipalities follow the Constitution and the laws, and whether they execute Government decisions. The institutions which may be organised by means of laws adopted by the Seimas are also provided for by the Constitution: institutions of control; governmental institutions; specialised courts for hearing cases of administrative, labour, family cases and cases of other categories, are provided for in the Constitution as well.

4.1. Some State institutions are treated in the Constitution as state institutions which exercise state power. They are specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Constitution, in which it is prescribed that in Lithuania, the Seimas, the President of the Republic and the Government, and the Judiciary, exercise state power. Relations between the Seimas (executing the legislative power), the President of the Republic and the Government (institutions of the executive power), and the Judiciary (executing the judicial power) are grounded on the constitutional principle of the separation of powers.

4.1.1. The Seimas, the representation of the Nation, executes the legislative power, and it is the only legislative institution in Lithuania. It is directly provided for in the Constitution that the Seimas has the powers to establish certain state institutions by law. According to Item 5 of Article 67 of the Constitution, the Seimas establishes state institutions provided for by law, and appoints and releases their heads. When construing the legal regulation established in Article 67 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has held that this item means, inter alia, that the Seimas has the powers to provide for the state institutions in the law, the heads of which are appointed and released by the Seimas itself, also that the Seimas enjoys the powers to appoint and release the heads of such institutions (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 January 2003).

4.1.2. The bases of the system of institutions of the executive power, as well as powers of supreme institutions of the executive power, are established in the Constitution. The constitutional arrangement of the State of Lithuania has a specific feature of the model of dualistic (dual) executive power: the executive power in Lithuania is exercised by the President of the Republic, the Head of State, and the Government.

The President of the Republic is a part of the executive power (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 10 January 1998, 21 December 1999, and 30 December 2003). It is established in Article 77 of the Constitution that the President of the Republic is the Head of State (Paragraph 1); he represents the State of Lithuania and performs everything that he is charged with by the Constitution and laws (Paragraph 2). The President of the Republic, implementing the powers vested in him, issues acts-decrees (Article 85 of the Constitution). It should be emphasised that the Government executes, inter alia, the decrees of the President of the Republic.

The Government is a collegial body of the executive power (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 10 January 1998). It is established in Article 91 of the Constitution that the Government of the Republic of Lithuania consists of the Prime Minister and Ministers; according to Paragraph 1 of Article 98 of the Constitution a Minister, inter alia, heads the ministry. According to Item 3 of Article 94 of the Constitution, the Government coordinates the activities of the ministries and other establishments of the Government. The Constitution specifies only one position of a minister—the Minister of National Defence (Paragraph 1 of Article 140 of the Constitution); therefore, according to the Constitution, the Ministry of National Defence may not be absent in Lithuania. When construing the legal regulation established in Item 3 of Article 94 of the Constitution, in its ruling of 23 November 1999, the Constitutional Court held that it is not disclosed in the Constitution what establishments are considered “establishments of the Government”, moreover, it is not specified what is the legal status of the above-mentioned government establishments. It is the legislature enjoying the discretion in this area (limited by the Constitution), who has to establish this. On the other hand, some government institutions are specified in the Constitution; for example, the institution of the representative of the Government, who enjoys the power to supervise whether municipalities follow the Constitution and the laws, and whether they implement the Government decisions, is consolidated in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 123 of the Constitution. In this context it is also worth mentioning that Paragraph 1 of Article 123 of the Constitution provides that in higher level administrative units the administration is organised by the Government in accordance with the procedure established by law; thus, the legislature has a duty not only to establish higher level administrative bodies, but also to provide for the government institutions, through which the Government would organise the administration at the administrative units of higher level as well.

It should be mentioned that the powers of the President of the Republic and the Government, as the two branches of dualistic (dual) executive power, are autonomous and independent in regard to each other. On the other hand, the Constitution expressis verbis specifies the powers of the President of the Republic and the Government which should be jointly implemented by the President of the Republic and the Government. For example, Article 85 of the Constitution, inter alia, provides: “To be valid, the decrees of the President of the Republic, specified in Items 3, 15, 17, and 21 of Article 84 of the Constitution, must be signed by the Prime Minister or an appropriate Minister.” According to Item 1 of Article 84 of the Constitution, the President of the Republic, inter alia, together with the Government conducts foreign policy. It is worth noticing that, while paying heed to the Constitution, a law may provide also for such legal regulation, pursuant to which certain state institutions would be established under the President of the Republic, the Head of State.

4.1.3. The judicial power is executed by courts. In the Republic of Lithuania administration of justice is within the competence of the judicial power.

It is established in Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution that the Constitutional Court decides whether the laws and other acts of the Seimas are not in conflict with the Constitution and whether acts of the President of the Republic and the Government are not in conflict with the Constitution and laws. The Constitutional Court ensures the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system and administers constitutional justice.

It is entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Constitution that the courts of the Republic of Lithuania are the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, regional and local courts. These courts comprise the system of courts of general jurisdiction.

In Paragraph 2 of Article 111 of the Constitution it is prescribed that for the consideration of administrative, labour, family and other categories of cases, specialised courts may be established.

In its rulings the Constitutional Court has stressed more than once the independence of the judicial power from the legislative and the executive powers, as well as the fully-fledgedness of the judicial power. For example, it was held in the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 21 December 1999 that the fully-fledgedness and independency of the judicial power implies its self-regulation and self-government, which comprises also both the organisation of work of courts and activity of professional corps of judges; that when ensuring the independency of a judge and courts it is especially important to clearly delimit the activity of courts from the executive power; that activity of courts is not and may not be considered the area of governance commissioned to any institution of the executive power; that it is only an independent institutional system of courts which may guarantee organisational independence and, by the same, procedural independence of the judge; that administration of courts should be organised so that it does not violate a true independency of judges. These constitutional imperatives determine that the legal regulation, according to which particular state institutions ensuring independent administration of courts are organised under the judicial power, may and must be established by law.

It is established in Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of the Constitution that a special institution of judges advises the President of the Republic concerning the appointment of judges, as well as their promotion, transference, or release from office. When construing this provision of Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court held in its ruling of 21 December 1999: “the special institution of judges provided for in Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of the Constitution should be interpreted as an important element of self-government of the Judiciary which is an independent branch of state power”, it is “a counter-balance to the President of the Republic, who is a subject of the executive, in the area of the formation of the corps of judges”.

4.2. Other state institutions that do not belong to the legislative, the executive, or the judicial branches, as per Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Constitution, are specified in the Constitution as well.

For example, according to the Constitution such institutions and/or officials are Seimas ombudsmen (Paragraph 1 of Article 73 of the Constitution), the Office of the Prosecutor General and territorial prosecutor’s offices (Article 118 of the Constitution), the National Audit Office (Chapter XII), the Bank of Lithuania (Articles 125 and 126 of the Constitution), the Security Service (Item 14 of Article 84 of the Constitution), the Commander of the Armed Forces (Item 14 of Article 84, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 140 of the Constitution), the Central Electoral Commission (Item 13 of Article 67 of the Constitution).

4.3. It is established in Item 5 of Article 67 of the Constitution that the Seimas establishes state institutions provided for by law and appoints their heads; it is established in Paragraph 1 of Article 94 that the Government administers the affairs of the country; it is established in Paragraph 1 of Article 123 that in higher level administrative units, the administration is organised by the Government in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Therefore, the Seimas, and, according to the laws, as well as the Government, enjoys the powers to establish state institutions, which are not specified expressis verbis in the Constitution, but a need to establish which originates from the necessity to implement the state administration, manage the affairs of the country, ensure the execution of various state functions.

5. The Constitution distinguishes two systems of public power: state administration and local self-government. Under the Constitution, local self-government is self-regulation and self-action of the communities of the administrative units of state territory, in accordance with the competence defined by the Constitution and laws, which are provided for by law (i.e. territorial or local communities), and which are composed of permanent residents of these units (citizens of the Republic of Lithuania and other permanent residents) (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 December 2002). The Constitution determines local self-government as a local public administration system operating on the basis of self-action principles, which is not directly subordinate to state power institutions (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 18 February 1998 and 24 December 2002). The Constitution names communities of state administrative territorial units (territorial communities) as municipalities (or local municipalities). However, due to the fact that the right of self-government is inseparable from the institutions through which the said right is implemented and/or from the organisation and activities of the institutions which are accountable to them, it is not coincidence that the Constitution employs the notion of “municipality” not only in the sense of the territorial community of an administrative unit but also in the sense of local self-government institutions and/or the institutions which are accountable to them (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 December 2002).

Local self-government is the power of territorial communities of administrative units that are provided for by law, which is formed and functions on other constitutional grounds than state power (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 December 2002). The Constitution does not identify self-government with state administration (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 14 January 2002 and 24 December 2002). However, the fact that the Constitution does not identify local self-government with state administration does not mean that there is no interaction between state administration and local self-government; state administration and local self-government, as two systems of the implementation of public power, are related, however, each of them implements the functions which are characteristic of it only (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 December 2002). The interests of municipalities and the state are coordinated. The principle of coordination of the interests of municipalities and the state manifests itself not only in the support of municipalities by the state in various ways and forms or in the supervision by the state of the activities of municipalities in the forms prescribed by law, but also in the coordination of common actions when important social objectives are sought (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 18 February 1998 and 24 December 2002).

It is established in Paragraph 2 of Article 120 of the Constitution that municipalities act freely and independently within their competence established by the Constitution and laws. The independence of municipalities and freedom of their activities within the competence limited by the Constitution and laws are constitutional principles (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 December 2002). The provision of the Constitution that municipalities shall act freely and independently within their competence, which shall be established by the Constitution and laws, should be regarded as a guarantee of the participation of these communities in the governance of these territories (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 28 June 2001 and 24 December 2002). By the same it is worth mentioning that the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 120 of the Constitution that municipalities shall act freely and independently may not be kept separate from the provision established in the same paragraph of the same article that the freedom and independence of municipalities are bound by the competence established by the Constitution and laws (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 13 June 2000 and 24 December 2002).

Under the Constitution, it is not permitted to establish any legal regulation whereby the opportunity for municipalities to realise their competence directly established in the Constitution would be denied. In case the Constitution or laws assign certain functions to municipalities, then municipalities discharge these functions to the extent that they are assigned such functions. This means that a certain part of the competence of municipalities must be implemented directly, that the implementation of decisions adopted by municipal councils within the limits of their competence must not be bound by decisions (permissions, consents, etc.) of certain state institutions or officials. However, it needs to be emphasised that even the functions which exclusively belong to municipalities are regulated by law. Not a single one of these functions mean that in a respective area municipalities are absolutely independent (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 December 2002).

The constitutional imperative of social harmony, the entrenched in the Constitution striving for a civil society and justice, the unitary type of the State of Lithuania, other constitutional imperatives imply that the public interest of the municipality—the territorial community—may not be opposed to the public interest of the entire community of the state, the civil Nation, a part of which is the territorial community itself. Due to this reason, in addition to the functions which belong exclusively to municipalities, they may be commissioned to discharge certain state functions; thus, a more efficient connection between state power and citizens as well as democracy of administration are ensured; under the Constitution, such state functions must be transferred to municipalities by law (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 December 2002).

Thus, while acting according to the competence defined by the Constitutions and laws, while exercising public administration and/or providing public service, the municipalities (their institutions) ensure the public interest not only of the territorial community, but the public interest of the entire community of the state—the civil Nation, which is ensured, according to their competence, by state institutions as well.

It is established in Paragraph 1 of Article 121 of the Constitution that municipalities draft and confirm their own budget. This provision of the Constitution is linked with the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 127 of the Constitution that the budgetary system of the Republic of Lithuania consists of the independent State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania as well as the independent municipal budgets. Thus, according to the Constitution the budgetary system of Lithuania is unified, the municipal budgets are constituent part thereof, their independency may be construed only upon taking account of the unity of the budgetary system of Lithuania which is consolidated in the Constitution.

The independence of the activities of municipalities, which is entrenched in the Constitution, and which is within the limits of the competence defined in the Constitution and laws, implies that if municipalities are transferred state functions by law, or if they are given duties by law or other legal act, funds must be provided for the implementation of these functions (duties), also, if, before the end of a budget year, municipalities are transferred additional state functions (are given duties), for this purpose funds must be allocated as well. Under the Constitution, municipalities must execute laws, thus, also the laws whereby the municipalities are obligated to exercise the functions transferred to them by the state. Municipalities would be unable to exercise such duties unless their implementation were not guaranteed by financial means. The funds for the implementation of the functions transferred by the state to municipalities must be provided for in the law on the state budget. The independence of activities of municipalities within the limits of the competence established by the Constitution and laws and the support of the state for municipalities, coordination of the interests of municipalities and those of the state, which are entrenched in the Constitution, imply that funds (municipal revenues and their sources) must be provided for in the state budget, necessary for the ensuring of the fully-fledged functioning of self-government and for the implementation of functions of municipalities (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 14 January 2002 and 24 December 2002).

The right of self-government is implemented through self-government institutions—municipal councils (Paragraph 1 of Article 119 of the Constitution). It is worth noticing that no other self-government institutions, save the municipal councils, are specified in the Constitution; the notion “self-government institutions” expresses the constitutional purpose of corresponding institutions of territorial communities of administrative units: they are institutions through which the right of self-government of respective communities is implemented (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 December 2002).

The Constitutional Court has held that, under the Constitution, members of municipal councils may not be unequal in their legal status. The Constitution consolidates the principle of the prohibition on a dual mandate. The same persons may not discharge the functions in the implementation of state power and, at the same time, be members of municipal councils, through which the right of self-government is implemented; members of the Seimas, the President of the Republic, members of the Government, and judges may not be members of municipal councils. The state officials who, according to the Constitution and laws, enjoy the powers to control or supervise the activities of municipal councils, i.e. the state officials (servants and other persons irrespective of how they are referred to in laws) who, under the Constitution and laws, enjoy the powers to adopt the decisions, on which depend the adoption and implementation of decisions of municipal councils within their competence defined in the Constitution and laws, may not be members of municipal councils, either. If it is established in laws that heads and officials of municipal establishments and enterprises are accountable for the activity of their own or of respective establishments and enterprises to municipal councils, they may not, at the same time, be members of such municipal councils. While deciding whether a certain state official should be regarded as a state official who has the right to adopt decisions upon which the adoption and implementation of decisions of municipal councils within their competence defined in the Constitution and laws would be dependent, and who, due to this, cannot be a municipal council member at the same time, one must assess in every particular case the content of the powers established to him in the Constitution and laws. In cases when a legal situation occurs where any above-mentioned person (who may not be a member of municipal council at the same time) is elected a member of a municipal council, he, before the newly elected municipal council convenes to the first sitting, must decide whether to remain in his previous office or to be a member of the municipal council, i.e. before the newly elected municipal council convenes to the first meeting, the person must, according to the procedure established by law, declare his decision either to remain in office or to be a member of the municipal council, also that before the newly elected municipal council convenes to the first sitting, the question of the legal status of this person must be decided: if the person has decided to be a member of the municipal council, then, before the newly elected municipal council convenes to the first sitting, it must be stated, under the procedure established by law, that he has lost his office which was incompatible with the office of a member of the municipal council, but if the person has decided to remain in office and not to be a member of the municipal council then, before the newly elected municipal council convenes to the first sitting, it must be stated, under the procedure established by law, that he has lost the mandate of a member of the municipal council. The law must establish the legal regulation, according to which the said question of the legal status of the person is decided before the newly elected municipal council convenes to the first sitting (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 24 December 2002, 30 May 2003 and its decisions of 11 February 2004 and 13 February 2004).

The self-government institutions—the municipal councils—establish executive bodies accountable to them (Paragraph 4 of Article 119 of the Constitution). The principle of supremacy of municipal councils in regard to executive bodies, which are accountable to them, is entrenched in the Constitution. In its ruling of 24 December 2002 the Constitutional Court held that the right of self-government is inseparable from the institutions through which the said right is implemented and/or from the organisation and activities of the institutions which are accountable to them, that municipal councils as self-government institutions are directly provided for in the Constitution, that no other self-government institutions are specified in the Constitution, and that the notion “self-government institutions” expresses the constitutional purpose of corresponding institutions of territorial communities of administrative units: they are institutions through which the right of self-government of respective communities is implemented.

In its ruling of 24 December 2002 the Constitutional Court also held that, under the Constitution the decisions adopted by municipal councils are inseparable from the implementation thereof; it is established in Paragraph 4 of Article 119 of the Constitution that for the direct implementation of the laws of the Republic of Lithuania, the decisions of the Government and the municipal council, the municipal council establishes executive bodies accountable to it, thus, it is the constitutional duty of municipal councils to establish the executive bodies, and they are an inseparable part of the self-government mechanism. Still, the executive bodies which are accountable to municipal councils may not be comprised from members of the municipal councils that establish them.

The Constitution does not establish any type of executive bodies (collegial, single-person bodies), which are accountable to municipal councils, nor the procedure of their formation, their names, or interrelations; their functions and competence are established only in general terms. The establishment, by law, of the functions and competence of the executive bodies accountable to municipal councils is left to be done by the Seimas. When regulating the formation, functions and competence of the executive bodies accountable to municipal councils by law, one must pay heed to the principles of local self-government, which are established in the Constitution: the representative democracy, accountability of executive bodies to the representation, the supremacy of municipal councils in respect to the executive bodies which are accountable to them, etc. The legislature enjoys the discretion to establish by law as to the procedure, whether by election or in other fashion, the said executive bodies are formed, also, which of the said bodies are collegial and which are single-person, also, the type of their interrelations. The legislature also enjoys the discretion to establish by law the structure of collegial executive bodies and the number of their members, or to leave it, by law, to be done by municipal councils. The executive bodies accountable to municipal councils must be formed for the term of office of the municipal council. The executive bodies indicated in Paragraph 4 of Article 119 of the Constitution are the institutions which are established for the direct implementation of the laws, the decisions of the Government and of the municipal council, they are not internal structural units (subunits) of municipal councils, which have to ensure the work of the municipal council itself. The municipal councils have the constitutional competence to control the said executive bodies, therefore, the said executive bodies may not replace municipal councils, or to bring municipal councils under their control, or to dictate them, the powers of the executive bodies may not be dominant in respect to the powers of municipal councils, it is not permitted to establish the legal regulation whereby the executive bodies accountable to municipal councils would be equated to the municipal councils which have established them, let alone the legal regulation whereby the powers of the executive bodies established by and accountable to municipal councils would restrict the powers of the latter, or under which municipal councils would lose an opportunity to control the executive bodies established by and accountable to them (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 December 2002).

The constitution provides for two types of municipal institutions: municipal councils (representative institutions) and the executive bodies accountable to them (executive institutions). In the cases established in the Constitution and laws, authoritative empowerments are granted to the municipal representative and executive institutions. Such municipal institutions are institutions of municipal power and institutions of public administration. As decisions adopted by municipal councils are inseparable from the execution of these decisions, then the municipal representative institutions as well as the municipal executive institutions, both of which are provided for in the Constitution, according to their competence are responsible for the implementation of the right of self-government and for the direct implementation of the laws, the decisions of the Government and the municipal council (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 December 2002).

Municipal councils, while implementing the right of self-government guaranteed by the Constitution, may also establish other municipal institutions and other municipal establishments which have authoritative empowerments; the notion “municipal institutions” means the fact that respective institutions belong to a certain municipality. Municipal institutions are established so that the interests of the municipality would be realised, laws and decisions of the Government and the municipal council would be directly implemented. Thus, municipal councils, as well as the executive bodies accountable to them, and other institutions established by municipal councils, should be regarded as “municipal institutions” (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 December 2002).

6. State functions as an organisation of the entire society, which has to act in the interests of the entire community in a way ensuring the social harmony, are linked to each other, comprise a single system and may not be confronted to each other. Therefore, state institutions through which the said functions are implemented may not be confronted to each other as well.

It is also worth noticing that state institutions may not be confronted also to other (non-state) institutions, which are, according to laws and while paying heed to the Constitution, commissioned to perform (entrusted with performing) particular state functions or which participate in exercising state functions in particular forms and manner defined in the laws, i.e. they perform public administration and/or provide public services. As they are the institutions which perform public administration and/or provide public services and, thus, guaranteeing the public interest, they comprise a single system. Within the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it is worth noting that both state and municipal institutions, the two systems of public power which are established in the Constitution and which, each of them, as it was already mentioned, perform the functions characteristic of it, but which still are related to each other, belong to this system. According to the Constitution, one must establish such a legal regulation, which would ensure systemic correlations between and interaction of the institutions performing public administration and/or providing public services and, thus, guaranteeing the public interest, comprising, inter alia, the rational proportion of their competence, efficiency, professional skills, the transferability of knowledge, skills and experience of persons employed in the said institutions, as well as continuity of such an activity while performing state functions and guaranteeing the public interest.

7. The correlations of state institutions, as well as interaction between state institutions and municipal institutions, do not deny their specific characteristics. The content of each state function and the environment of its implementation implies that the state institutions which perform these functions may not be different in their status and type of activity.

Some state functions are performed, first of all (or in majority of cases), through state (and municipal) civil institutions, the others through military and/or paramilitary state institutions. In its ruling of 24 December 2002, the Constitutional Court held that under the Constitution military, paramilitary and security services are separated from the civil service. The differentiated concept of state civil institutions as well as state military and paramilitary institutions is consolidated in the Constitution. It provides the legal prerequisites for differentiated regulation of relations, linked with the activity of state civil institutions as well as state military and paramilitary institutions, and for establishing the legal status of persons employed at state civil and military as well as paramilitary institutions which would have certain specific characteristics.

It is worth noticing in this context that under Article 140 of the Constitution it is the State Defence Council consisting of the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Seimas, the Minister of National Defence, and the Commander of the Armed Forces, who considers and coordinates the main issues of the defence of the state (Paragraph 1); it is the President of the Republic who is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of the state (Paragraph 2); it is the Government, the Minister of National Defence, and the Commander of the Armed Forces who are responsible to the Seimas for the administration and command of the Armed Forces of the state (Paragraph 3); the Minister of National Defence may not be a serviceman who has not yet retired to the reserve (Paragraph 3). It is also worth noticing that under Article 141 of the Constitution persons performing actual military service or alternative service, as well as officials of the national defence system, of the police and the Interior, non-commissioned officials, re-enlistees and other paid officials of paramilitary and security services who have not retired to the reserve may not be members of the Seimas and of municipal councils, they may not hold any elective or appointive office in state civil service.

In its decision of 29 May 1996, the Constitutional Court held that “the relations of strict subordination and those of other regulations are of great importance to soldiers in active military service, officers of the national defence, the internal service, non-commissioned officers, officers of security services and other officials mentioned in Article 141 of the Constitution”, that “there may emerge an internal collision between the necessity to carry out the functions of state power and perform the requirements of the regulations in the activity of these and other persons mentioned in Article 141 of the Constitution.”, and that “this may be one reason why the functioning of democratic institutions could be deranged”, thus, “there are no preconditions for asserting that a soldier, the officer of police, the internal service or any other person indicated in Article 141 of the Constitution may be a minister or hold other positions pointed out in this article without having retired from active service”.

It stems from the constitutional requirement that state power in Lithuania should be organised in a democratic way and that a democratic political regime must be in place in the country, from the constitutional imperative of an open, just and harmonious civil society, from the constitutional principle of responsible governance, and from other provisions of the Constitution that military and paramilitary state institutions may not have priority over state civil institutions, that decisions of military and paramilitary institutions and their officials must be based on decisions of state civil institutions, that military state institutions must be accountable to and controlled by state civil institutions. Democratic civil control over state military and paramilitary institutions (including the armed forces) is a necessary prerequisite of civil democratic governance, and, thus, of a state under the rule of law.

8. State and municipal institutions perform public administration and/or provide public services through the persons employed in these institutions who adopt respective decisions. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it is worth noticing that a diverse status of the persons employed in the institutions through which state functions are exercised is consolidated in the Constitution.

8.1. Some persons—members of the Seimas, the President of the Republic, members of the Government and judges—perform their functions while exercising state power; they perform these functions independently; to this purpose, respective powers, which may be exercised only by the said persons and nobody else, are established to them in the Constitution and laws. Members of municipal councils perform the functions while implementing the self-government right of territorial communities, under the powers established to them by law, members of municipal councils implement the functions of self-government independently. The fact that other persons employed in the institutions through which state functions are performed assist the said persons, provide them support in another way or provide them services needed in their activity, does not mean that these other persons implement any functions while exercising state power.

It was mentioned that the institutions exercising state power are listed in Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Constitution—these are the Seimas, the President of the Republic and the Government, and the Court. The Constitutional Court has held in its rulings that in case state officials perform their duties according to the Constitution and law, and when they act in the interest of the Nation and the State of Lithuania they must be protected from any pressure and unreasonable interference in their activity, when fairly exercising their duties, they must not suffer threat against their person, their rights and freedoms (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 25 May 2004 and 1 July 2004). In order that they might be able to discharge the functions prescribed to them in the Constitution in the implementation of state power, the Constitution provides for a special legal status for the President of the Republic, members of the Seimas, members of the Government and judges, which includes, inter alia, the restrictions on work, remuneration and political activities, also a special procedure of removal from office or revocation of the mandate and/or immunities: inviolability of the person and a special procedure of application of criminal and/or administrative liability (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 December 2002). Under the Constitution, no other persons employed in the institutions through which state functions are exercised have the aforementioned immunities. On the other hand, a special—constitutional—liability is established in the Constitution for majority of the said state officials. The state officials, who perform functions while exercising state power, differ from all other persons employed at the institutions, through which state functions are implemented, in this regard, too.

8.2. Other persons employed at the institutions, through which state functions are implemented, comprise a corps of state servants. The state service is a professional activity of these persons, related to the guaranteeing of the public interest. The notion “state service”, employed in the Constitution, in its content is identical to the notion “public service”. The concept of the state service entrenched in the Constitution is inseparably linked with the purpose of the state as an organisation of the entire society to ensure human rights and freedoms and to guarantee the public interest. Professional state servants adopt decisions while performing public administration and/or providing public services (or participate in drafting and executing these decisions, coordinating and/or controlling the implementation thereof, etc.), however, they do not exercise functions while exercising state power (like members of the Seimas, the President of the Republic, members of the Government and judges) and, under the Constitution, may not enjoy such powers. Thus, the notion “state service” employed in the Constitution does not include the office of a member of the Seimas, the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister or a Minister, and of a judge.

In this context, it should be held that the notion “state service” does not comprise members of municipal councils, i.e. local power institutions, either.

8.3. Professional activity of state servants must be remunerated from the state (municipal) budget.

8.4. In this context, it is worth mentioning that the Constitution does not provide any prerequisites for treating in legal acts all persons, who are employed at state or municipal institutions and whose activity is remunerated from the state (municipal) budget, as state servants only on the basis of the fact that they are employed at the aforementioned institutions or that their activity is remunerated from the state (municipal) budget. It is the persons employed at the state or municipal institutions and who adopt decisions while exercising public administration and/or providing public services (or participate in drafting and executing such decisions, coordinating and/or controlling the execution thereof, etc.) who should be considered state servants.

It should also be noted that under the Constitution the activity, when persons participate in exercising state (or municipal) functions while not being employed at state or municipal institutions, is not to be considered the state service, either.

Laws and other legal acts must establish such legal status of state servants, which would be in line with the constitutional concept of the state service as a special—remunerated from state (municipal) budget—system of professional activity when adopting decisions in the area of exercising public administration and/or providing public services (or participation in drafting and executing such decisions, coordinating and/or controlling the execution thereof, etc.), which implies, inter alia, the internal mobility of the state service as a system, the transferability of personal knowledge, skills and experience, and continuity of such an activity while performing state functions and guaranteeing the public interest as well.

9. It has been mentioned that all the legal acts (parts thereof), the compliance of which with the Constitution and laws is impugned by the petitioners, regulate the relations of the state service and/or relations linked with the state service in various aspects. Therefore, when deciding whether the impugned legal acts (parts thereof) are not in conflict with the Constitution and laws, it is necessary to disclose the constitutional concept of the state service and those requirements originating from the Constitution, which should be paid heed to by the legislature when it regulates the relations of the state service and relations linked thereto.

In this context it is worth emphasising that no single, universally recognised concept of the state service exists in the scientific literature on law, political sciences or public administration. This concept differs in various states as well; moreover, it is different in the same state during different periods of development of the state or law. The jurisprudence of various countries proves this as well. The reforms of the state service and public administration which were carried out in Lithuania reflect the dynamics of the concept of the state service.

The constitutional norms and principles may not be construed on the basis of acts adopted by the legislature or other law-making subjects, as the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system would thus be denied (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 12 July 2001 and 1 July 2004).

It needs to be noted that the constitutional concept of the state service may be disclosed only on the basis of the provisions of the Constitution itself, their content and systemic links between them. The constitutional concept of the state service may not be construed according to the way the state service relations are regulated by law and substatutory act. It is the function of the constitutional jurisprudence and the official constitutional doctrine formulated therein to disclose the content of the constitutional concept of the state service.

The legislature enjoys broad discretion to choose and consolidate in laws a certain model of organisation of the state service. However, it should be stressed that, while regulating the relations of the state service, the legislature is bound by the constitutional concept of the state service and that it must pay heed to the norms and principles of the Constitution. According to their competence, other law-making subjects must pay heed to the constitutional concept of the state service while regulating the relations of the state service.

10. In the Constitution, the state service is mentioned expressis verbis only in Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution, in which it is prescribed that citizens have the right to participate in the government of the state both directly and through their democratically elected representatives, as well as the right to enter into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions, and in Article 141 of the Constitution, in which it is prescribed that persons performing actual military service or alternative service, as well as officers of the national defence system, of the police and the Interior, non-commissioned officers, re-enlistees and other paid officials of paramilitary and security services who have not retired to the reserve may not be members of the Seimas and of municipal councils, and they may not hold any elective or appointive office in state civil service, and may not take part in the activities of political parties and political organisations.

11. The state service is a professional activity of state servants linked with guaranteeing of the public interest. The fact that the purpose of the state service is to guarantee, when state and municipal institutions exercise public administration and provide public service, the public interest rather than private interests of the employees engaged in this activity, presupposes a special procedure of forming the state servants as a corps, the specifics of their legal status, and their special responsibility to the society for implementation of functions commissioned to them as well.

The legal relations of the state service are legal relations between a state servant and the state, which acts as the employer of the said person. Still, despite similarities, the legal relations of the state service are not identical to employment relations, which emerge between the employee, who is not a state servant, and the employer (irrespective of whether the relations arise in state institutions, municipal institutions, or other enterprises, establishments, and organisations). Their legal statuses are different.

12. It has been mentioned that all the provisions of the Constitution should be construed in the context of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and the enshrined in the Constitution concept of a state under the rule of law, and that construction of all the provisions of the Constitution in the context of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is an essential pre-requisite of a comprehensive construction of the Constitution.

Thus, the constitutional concept of the state service, which is mentioned, inter alia, in the above-quoted Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution, should be disclosed also while paying heed to the entrenched in the Constitution principle of a state under the rule of law—the universal constitutional principle, upon which the entire Lithuanian system of law and the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania itself are based, and wherein various values entrenched in, and protected and defended by the Constitution are integrated.

13. The constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the constitutional imperatives of justice and social harmony, the striving for a civil society, the constitutional principle of responsible governance, as well as the principles consolidated in the Constitution, such as the principle that the State of Lithuania is an independent democratic republic, that the State of Lithuania is created by the Nation, that the sovereignty belongs to the Nation, that the scope of powers is limited by the Constitution, that state institutions serve the people, and the recognition of the innate nature of human rights and freedoms, as well as other constitutional imperatives, imply various constitutional requirements to the state service as a system, which comprises professional activity of persons, employed at state or municipal institutions, when adopting decisions in the course of execution of public administration and/or providing public services (or participating in drafting and executing such decisions, coordinating and/or controlling the execution thereof, etc.) and thus guaranteeing the public interest in the whole state.

Since the constitutional concept of the state service as a system, which comprises professional activity of persons, employed at the state or municipal institutions, when adopting decisions in the course of execution of public administration and/or providing public services (or participating in drafting and executing such decisions, coordinating and/or controlling the execution thereof, etc.) and thus ensuring the public interest in the whole state, implies a necessity to establish such legal regulation, which would ensure systemic correlations between and interaction of all above-mentioned institutions, comprising, inter alia, the transferability of knowledge, skills and experience of persons employed in the said institutions, as well as continuity of such an activity while performing state functions and ensuring the public interest, the system of the state service, consolidated in laws and other legal acts, may not be, under the Constitution, of other than a uniform type. Thus, one of the elements of the constitutional concept of the state service, and, by the same, one of the requirements which must be observed when organising the state service and regulating the relations of the state service is uniformity of the system of the state service. Taking account of the variety of state functions which are implemented through respective institutions, the uniformity of the system of the state service does not deny the possibility of regulating certain relations of the state service in a differentiated manner.

The chosen model of the system of the state service, as well as the bases of organisation and functioning, should be established by law.

It is worth noticing that “municipal service” is not separately mentioned in the Constitution. The constitutional concept of the state service comprises the relations of service not only at state institutions, but at municipal institutions as well; in this ruling of the Constitutional Court it was held that the notion “state service” employed in the Constitution is identical to the notion “public service”. A single system of the state service is an necessary pre-requisite of the effective interaction of state administration and local self-government, the two systems of public power, and non-confronting, harmonising the public interest of the entire society of the state, the civil Nation, and the public interest of territorial communities and municipalities.

It is also worth noting that only a single system of the state service ensures its internal mobility and the possibility, if needed, of an expedient arrangement of human and other resources, which are necessary for the implementation of certain state functions or solving other issues, which occur in the state.

The unity of the systems of the state service, comprising service at both state and municipal institutions, is an important condition of uninterrupted, continued functioning of the system of the state service. The Constitutional Court has held that under the Constitution, no legal situation may occur where any institution exercising state power fails to function (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 1 July 2004). The same can be said about other state and municipal institutions through which state functions are exercised, too. Thus, all the state and municipal institutions must act continuously. This means that the functioning of the state service as a system should be continuous as well, so that one could constantly and efficiently exercise public administration and provide public service in the entire state, thus guaranteeing the public interest.

It has been mentioned that the unity of the system of the state service does not deny the possibility of regulating certain relations of the state service in a differentiated manner. Such differentiation is possible upon considering that, under the Constitution, it is necessary to guarantee efficient exercise of state functions and guarantee the public interest. A differentiated legal regulation of the relations of the state service is based on particularities of state (municipal) institutions and functions performed by them, the place of the said institutions in the system of all the institutions through which state functions are performed, as well as on the powers established to them, the professional skills necessary to respective state servants and other important factors.

For example, it has been mentioned that a differentiated concept of state civil institutions as well as state military and paramilitary institutions is entrenched in the Constitution, and that this fact provides prerequisites for differentiated regulation, by legal acts, of relations linked with activity of state civil institutions as well as state military and paramilitary institutions, and for establishment of such legal status of the persons employed at state civil and military as well as paramilitary institutions, which would have certain particularities.

The relations of the state service may be regulated in a differentiated manner also upon taking account of the fact whether this service is a service at state or municipal institutions, and whether respective state institutions, under the Constitution, are categorised as belonging to the legislative, the executive or the judicial branches, or none of them. Various criteria may be the basis of the differentiated regulation of relations of the state service: state functions which are exercised through a respective state (municipal) institution, the competence of the institution, the scope of activity, the size of the institution, the territory of activity, etc.

The basis of differentiation of legal regulation of relations of the state service may also be the fact that the state service as a system is organised on the basis of, inter alia, the principles of hierarchy and accountability. The establishment of a hierarchy or other classification, grouping into categories, etc. of positions of state servants must be unified and based on the same criteria; it is not allowed that individual state institutions or individual branches of state power establish each for itself a separate system of categories (classification) of positions of state servants, which would not be based on the criteria established by law and common to the entire state service. When establishing the said single system, it is essential to pay heed to the principle of the separation of powers, which implies, inter alia, that all the branches of state power—legislative, executive and judicial—are equal in their state status. Concrete positions of state servants may be assigned to a certain category (type) only according to this uniform system, however, this must be done while paying heed to particularities of each institution and each position, respective functions performed and responsibility taken by state servants, as well as other factors.

Still, it should be stressed that, under the Constitution, it is not permitted to create any such legal regulation according to which the state service in certain state (municipal) institutions (a certain link of the system of the state service) would be eliminated from the general system of the state service, or which would consolidate a privileged status of state servants of certain institutions in regard to state servants of analogous institutions or, vice versa, their discrimination. For example, the Constitutional Court in its ruling of 2 July 2002 held that “the relations of the organisation of the national defence system and military service have their particularities”, that “taking account of these particularities, it is permitted to establish by law various ways of resolving disputes regarding violation of the rights and freedoms, including out-of-court settlement procedure of such disputes”, however, “the particularities of the relations of the organisation of the national defence system and military service may not deny the constitutional right of persons to appeal to court to defend their rights and freedoms”.

14. Under the Constitution, the state service is service to the State of Lithuania and the civil Nation, therefore, the state service should be loyal to the State of Lithuania and its constitutional order. It must be organised so that only the people who are loyal to the State of Lithuania and its constitutional order adopt decisions while exercising public administration and providing public service (or participate in drafting and executing these decisions, coordinating and/or controlling executing thereof, etc.) at state or municipal institutions. The Constitution does not tolerate the situations where any link of the system of the state service, any state or municipal institution or individual state servants act contrary to the interests of the State of Lithuania or violate the constitutional order of the State of Lithuania.

It should be noted that the constitutional imperative of loyalty of the state service to the State of Lithuania raises special requirements as well. State servants not only must not violate the Constitution and laws themselves, but also bear the duty to take all the necessary positive actions when protecting the constitutional order of the State of Lithuania. In this context, it should be noted that it is established in Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Constitution that the Nation and each citizen has the right to resist anyone who encroaches upon the independence, territorial integrity, and constitutional order of the State of Lithuania by force; in Article 8 of the Constitution it is prescribed that seizure of state power or of its institution by force shall be considered anti-constitutional actions, which are unlawful and invalid; in Paragraph 1 of Article 139 of the Constitution it is prescribed that the defence of the state of Lithuania against a foreign armed attack is the right and duty of each citizen of the Republic of Lithuania. In its ruling of 23 November 1999, the Constitutional Court held the following: “The constitutional order of the Republic of Lithuania is based on of the priority of the rights and freedoms of individuals and citizens as the ultimate value, as well as on the principles establishing the sovereignty of the Nation, independence and territorial integrity of the state, democracy, the republic as the form of state governance, the separation of powers, their independence and balance, local self-government, etc. Protection of the constitutional order means that it is not permitted that the social, economic and political relations established in the Constitution which constitute the fundamentals of the life of individuals, society and the state be encroached upon.” It was also held in the said ruling of the Constitutional Court that “the Constitution does not establish the function of protection of the constitutional order to a single institution of state power. This is a constitutional obligation of all institutions of state power (the Seimas, the President of the Republic, the Government, the Judiciary) and other state establishments and organisations. This obligation derives not only from particular laws but also from the principle of the state under the rule of law established in the Constitution and the requirement to adhere to the Constitution, to enforce it, not to violate it and to protect it. Of course, every state institution protects the constitutional order only by means of the forms of the activity characteristic of it and only on the grounds of the powers granted to it by the Constitutions and laws”.

15. The state service must act in conformity only with the Constitution and law. Every state or municipal institution through which state functions are exercised, every state servant must pay heed to the requirements of lawfulness. State servants must not abuse the powers established for them and not violate the requirements of legal acts. In its ruling of 30 June 2000, the Constitutional Court held that state institutions and officials are obligated to protect and defend human rights and freedoms; and it is especially important that while exercising the functions commissioned to them they would not themselves violate human rights and freedoms. Under the Constitution, the legislature has a duty to regulate the relations of the state service, and the system of the state service should function so that not only the liability is established for violations committed while in the state service, but that the persons who committed violations while in the state service would also in reality be brought to justice.

The Constitution guarantees a right to every citizen to appeal against the decisions of state institutions or their officials (Paragraph 2 of Article 33 of the Constitution). It is the Seimas ombudsmen who examine complaints of citizens concerning the abuse of powers by, or bureaucratic intransigence of, state and municipal officials (with the exception of judges); they have the right to submit a motion before a court that the guilty officials be released from office (Paragraph 1 of Article 73 of the Constitution). The observance of the Constitution and the laws, as well as the execution of the decisions of the Government by municipalities, is supervised by representatives appointed by the Government (Paragraph 2 of Article 123 of the Constitution). It is established in Paragraph 1 of Article 134 of the Constitution that the National Audit Office supervises the lawfulness of the possession and use of state-owned property and the execution of the State Budget.

It is worth mentioning in this context that it is established in Paragraph 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution that it is the law that establishes the compensation for material and moral damage inflicted on a person. When construing the legal regulation established in Paragraph 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court held that in this paragraph one “provides for a duty of the legislature to pass a law or laws providing for compensation of damage for a who suffered material or moral damage”, that “the laws must provide for factual protection of violated human rights and freedoms”, and “this protection must be coordinated with protection of the other values entrenched in the Constitution”, as well as that “the Constitution guarantees the right of an individual to compensation of material or moral damage, including recovery of damage under judicial procedure” (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 30 June 2000). In the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 20 January 1997, it is held that “the necessity to compensate material and moral damage inflicted on a person is a constitutional principle”, which “must be considered in the lawmaking work”, and that Paragraph 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution “clearly indicates the form of a legal act whereby compensation for material and moral damage must be regulated”—this must be done by law.

On the other hand, state servants must not suffer unreasonable interference in their activity, and they must be protected from any unlawful pressure or unlawful requirements (including unlawful pressure by and unlawful requirements of state or municipal politicians). State servants may not be commissioned unlawful assignments or instructions, and state servants may not carry out such assignments or instructions or may not in any other way be forced to obey them.

16. The system of the state service must be organised and must function strictly according to the constitutional principles of the separation of powers and restrictions on their power.

In its rulings the Constitutional Court has held more than once that the principle of the separation of state powers means that the legislative, executive and judicial branches of power must be separate, sufficiently independent, but also there must be a balance among them; that every state institution is assigned the competence which corresponds to its purpose; that the content of the competence of the institution depends on the place of the corresponding branch of power in the system of powers, on its relations with the other branches, on the place of the institution among the other institutions of power and on the relation of the powers of the said institution with the powers of other institutions; that after the Constitution had directly established the powers of a particular institution of state power, no state institution may take over such powers from another institution, nor transfer or waive them, and that such powers may not be amended or restricted by law.

While paying heed to the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, respective power should be assigned to every institution of branches (legislative, executive, judicial) of state power, as a chain of the system of the state service. Laws must consolidate such a model of organising the state service, where every institution has a clearly defined competence, and the disputes between them (or between state servants) related to the competence, if any, are settled on the basis of law, upon legal procedure.

The constitutional principle of the separation of powers is also inseparable from the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution that the scope of powers is limited by the Constitution, which is binding not only on the institutions of state power specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Constitution, but also on other institutions which enjoy authoritative empowerments, but are not categorised as belonging to the legislative, the executive, or the judicial branch, including the state servants employed at these institutions, too. In this context, it should be noted that, as already held by the Constitutional Court, if the legal regulation is established so that not only the powers of the institution of state power pointed out in Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Constitution are unreasonably expanded from the constitutional standpoint, but also the powers of some other state institution, is should also be held that the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution that the scope of power shall be limited by the Constitution is violated as well (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 24 December 2002 and 13 May 2004).

17. It was already mentioned that the purpose of the state service is to ensure the public interest. Thus, the public interest must dominate in relation to the private interest in the state service. In the state service the conflict between public and private interests must be avoided and no conditions for the emergence of such conflicts should be created. The opportunities provided by the state service should not be used for private benefit. When ensuring the public interest, it is essential to avoid unreasonable and unlawful impact by the interest groups, and, even more important, pressure on state servants, who adopt decisions while exercising public administration and providing public services (or participate in drafting and executing these decisions, coordinating and/or controlling the implementation thereof, etc.). In its ruling of 25 May 2004, the Constitutional Court held: “in order that the citizens—the state community—could reasonably trust the state officials, that it would be possible to ascertain that all the state institutions and all the state officials follow the Constitution as well as law and obey them, while those who do not obey the Constitution and law would not hold the office for which the confidence of the citizens—the state community—is needed, a public democratic control over the activity of the state officials comprising, inter alia, a possibility of removing from office the state officials who violate the Constitution and law, who bring their personal interests or the interests of the group above the public interests, or who disgrace state power by their actions, is needed”. It was held in the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 1 July 2004: “According to the Constitution, the legislature has a duty to establish by means of legal acts such legal regulation which would ensure that state officials, who perform their functions while exercising state power, and all the persons, who make decisions important to the society and the state, are able to properly execute their power, so that contraposition of public and private interests would be avoided, that no legal conditions would be created for state officials, who perform their functions while exercising state power, and all the persons, who make decisions important to the society and the state, to act in the private interests or interests of a group, instead of the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, and to use their status for the benefit of their own, their close relatives or other persons, so that it might be possible to effectively control how state officials, who perform their functions while exercising state power, and all the persons, who make decisions important to the society and the state, follow the said requirements, and that the above-mentioned state officials and other persons be held liable pursuant to the Constitution and law in case they do not follow these requirements.”

When protecting the state service from unreasonable and unlawful impact by the interest groups (thus, political powers as well), according to the Constitution, certain links of the system of the state service must be depoliticised. According to Article 141 of the Constitution, persons performing actual military service or alternative service, as well as officers of the national defence system, of the police and the Interior, non-commissioned officers, re-enlistees and other paid officials of paramilitary and security services who have not retired to the reserve may not take part in the activities of political parties and political organisations.

It stems from the Constitution that the state service as a system of professional activity must be impartial, neutral in regard to participants of political process, the system of the state service must be organised and must function so that continuity of ensuring the public interest is ensured upon the changes of political power. Under the Constitution, the opportunities provided by the state service may not be used for political activity; the legislature has a duty to ensure this by law. State servants must not give any priorities for any persons due to their political, moral, religious or other attitudes, beliefs or activity, or their other status. Otherwise, the constitutional principle of the equality of all persons which prohibits any discrimination of persons and provision of privileges to them would be deviated from.

18. The constitutional provision that state institutions serve the people, the constitutional imperative of an open society, and the constitutional concept of the state service imply that the state service should be open and accessible to the people whose affairs it manages. It has been mentioned that the purpose of the state as an organisation of the entire society, thus, the purpose of the state service as well, is to ensure human rights and freedoms, and to guarantee the public interest.

The work of the system of the state service and institutions of power should be organised so that the people who address state servants would not face any arbitrariness, abuse of powers, bureaucratic intransigence, that their requests would be examined and decided without delay. The requirement of accessibility of the state service to the people should also be related to the harmony of the state service as a system (thus, with the necessity to ensure the unity of the system of the state service as well). It is not allowed that the work of state and municipal institutions is organised so that a person, who addresses a state or municipal institution or a state servant with any issue, would be forced to re-address with the same issue due to the fact that the examination of the issue, despite that this application was reasonable and was in conformity with all the requirements established in legal acts (including the procedural requirements), was not initiated after the first application.

In this context it is worth noticing that it is established in Paragraph 1 of Article 73 of the Constitution that Seimas ombudsmen examine complaints of citizens concerning the abuse of powers by, or bureaucratic intransigence of, state and municipal officials (with the exception of judges); they have the right to submit a motion before a court that the guilty officials be released from office. It is established in Paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Constitution that the person whose constitutional rights or freedoms are violated has the right to apply to court.

The constitutional imperative of openness of the state service and its accessibility to people should also be linked with the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution, where the status of the Lithuanian language as the state language is entrenched. In its ruling of 21 October 1999, the Constitutional Court held that the state language, inter alia, integrates the civil Nation, ensures the smooth functioning of state and municipal institutions, it is an important guarantee of the equality of rights of citizens as it permits all the citizens to associate with state and municipal institutions under the same conditions, and to implement their rights and legitimate interests. It is also held in the above-mentioned ruling of the Constitutional Court that the constitutional establishment of the status of the state language also means that the legislature must establish by law that the use of this language is ensured in public life, and, in addition, he must provide for the means of protection of the state language. According to the Constitution, the Lithuanian language must be used in all state and municipal institutions and in all establishments, enterprises and organisations which are on the territory of Lithuania; laws and other legal acts must be published in the state language; office-work, accounting, accountabilities, and financial papers must be in Lithuanian; state and municipal institutions, establishments, enterprises and organisations correspond with each other in the state language. The nationality of an individual (including the relations with the officials and state servants of the state or municipal institution) may not serve as the basis for him to demand that the rules arising from the status of the state language be not applied as far as he is concerned; otherwise, the constitutional principle of the equality of all persons before the law, the court, state institutions and officials would be violated. The status of the Lithuanian language as the state language implies the necessity to organise the system of the state service and ensure that it functions so that only the persons who know the state language well be admitted to the state service (respective office); good knowledge of the state language is a necessary precondition in order to ensure that these persons, while acting as state servants, will be able to fulfil their duties, that the persons who in writing or orally address them as state servants will face no difficulties in communicating with them, and that normal communication between various state and municipal institutions will be ensured, that they will face no other difficulties when fulfilling their official duties or tasks related to the state service.

19. The constitutional provision that state institutions serve the people, the constitutional imperative of an open society, the constitutional concept of the state service, the openness of the state service implies a requirement for publicity of the state service as a system as well. The state service is service to the State of Lithuania and the Lithuanian Nation, therefore, society must be informed about the work of state institutions. The reasoning of decisions of state and municipal institutions, as well as state servants, must be clear and transparent, and the information about the reasoning of these decisions must be available.

The requirement of publicity of the state service is also linked with the entrenched in the Constitution right of citizens to criticise the work of state institutions or their officials, and to appeal against their decisions, and with the prohibition against the persecution for criticism (Paragraph 2 of Article 33 of the Constitution), as well as with the prohibition against the censorship of mass information (Paragraph 1 of article 44 of the Constitution) and the established (inter alia) prohibition on monopolising mass media (Paragraph 2 of article 44 of the Constitution). The Constitutional Court has noted that in a democratic state under the rule of law the public performance of duties by state officials and servants is one of essential principles protecting from their arbitrariness or abuse (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 8 May 2000).

In this context it is worth mentioning that according to Paragraph 2 of Article 25 of the Constitution a person may not be hindered, inter alia, from seeking and obtaining information, and according to Paragraph 3 of this article freedom to obtain information may not be restricted other than by law, if it is necessary to protect the health, honour and dignity, private life, and morals of a human being, or to defend constitutional order. It is established in Paragraph 5 of Article 25 of the Constitution that the citizen has the right to obtain any available information which concerns him from state institutions in the manner established by law.

On the other hand, it should be noted that the requirement of publicity of state service may not be interpreted so that it, purportedly, means that, at the request of various persons, information must be provided in a compulsory manner even in cases where the rights of a person or other constitutional values would be violated due to such disclosure of information. The requirement of publicity of the state service should also be linked with the requirements raised to state servants for loyalty to the State of Lithuania or the requirement of legitimacy of activity of the state service: making certain information, which constitutes a secret protected by the Constitution and laws, public or its disclosure in any other way in an illegal manner must lead to liability as provided for by law.

20. The necessity to perform public administration and to provide public services constantly and efficiently while ensuring the public interest, the concept of the state service as a professional activity and the requirement of efficiency of the state service result in the requirement for qualification. The state service must be qualified, it must be able to fulfil the tasks commissioned to it. This fact implies quite high (higher than the requirements for other employees) requirements of qualification and professional skills for state servants, especially the officials (first of all for those, who make single-person decisions), as well as the necessity to ensure for these persons, while in service, an opportunity to constantly improve their professional competence.

21. The efficiency of the functioning of the system of the state service depends upon material and financial stability as well. The state service is supported by the state (municipal) budget. It has been mentioned that the professional activity of state servants must also be remunerated from the state (municipal) budget. For this reason, the funding from the budget should be provided for for all the state tasks, otherwise, the state service would become inefficient and this would reduce the trust of society and the citizens in the system of the state service, degrade or even ruin its authority, and finally it would diminish the trust of the people in the state itself and its law.

Allocation of funds for the state service, its material supply and use of the allocated funds should be linked with the requirements of legitimacy and publicity raised for the state service, with the necessity to ensure the dominance of the public interest over private interests and to avoid the conflict between public and private interests. The funds and other resources must be used transparently. An efficient and independent system of control is necessary for this purpose, and it must, inter alia, be independent from the institutions or their officials, whose activity or decisions are under control. It has already been mentioned that according to Paragraph 1 of Article 134 of the Constitution it is the National Audit Office that supervises whether state-owned property is possessed and used lawfully and how the State Budget is executed.

22. These and other constitutional requirements for the state service as a system, in their turn, imply certain constitutionally reasonable requirements for the persons who seek to exercise their constitutional right to enter into the state service under equal conditions or who have already exercised this constitutional right of their own, i.e. who have already become state servants, as well.

The above-mentioned right of the citizen is consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution, wherein it is established: “Citizens shall have the right to participate in the government of the state both directly and through their democratically elected representatives, as well as the right to enter into the State service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions.”

The constitutional requirements for the persons who seek to exercise or who have already exercised their right to enter into the state service under equal conditions are, first of all, requirements for the persons who enter into the state service, and, secondly, requirements for the state servants. The constitutionally reasonable and necessary guarantees to the persons who enter into the state service and guarantees to the state servants are respectively linked with the said two groups of requirements.

23. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, the legal regulation entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution and the constitutional concept of the state service should be disclosed not only upon evaluating their links with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, but with other provisions of the Constitution, which are, in their turn, to be construed in accordance with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, as well.

24. It was already mentioned that all law-making subjects must pay heed to the hierarchy of legal acts which originates from the Constitution, that it is not permitted to amend a law and create new legal norms of general type, which would compete with the norms of law, by substatutory legal act, and that under the Constitution the legal regulation linked with defining the content of human rights and freedoms or consolidation of guarantees of their exercising can be established solely by law, however, in cases where the Constitution does not require the regulation of certain relations linked with human rights and their implementation to be made by means of a law, these relations may also be regulated by substatutory act, and the legal regulation established therein may compete with that established in the law under no circumstances.

It is the constitutional right of the citizen to enter into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions. Relations of the state service comprise relations linked with the implementation of the right of the citizen to enter into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions, as well as relations, which arise when the citizen enters into the state service and while he performs his duties at the state service; some other relations, which arise when the person finishes performing his duties at the state service (for example, relations linked with certain restrictions on the professional activity for former state servants, with pensions granted and paid to former state servants), are also closely linked with the relations of the state service. Thus, the implementation of the right of the person to enter into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions is linked with the implementation of other human rights, inter alia, the rights consolidated in the articles of the Constitution specified by the petitioners. To the extent that the relations of the state service are linked with human rights and freedoms, they must be regulated by law. It is worth mentioning in this context that “the material legal norms have the priority in regard to procedural legal norms”, because “as a rule, the latter are of an official character, i.e. they are aimed at implementation of material legal norms” (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 November 1996). The procedural relations of the state service (as well as those related to it) may be regulated by substatutory act, however, this must be done so that there would be no competition with the legal regulation established by law.

25. It was held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that professional state servants adopt decisions while performing public administration and/or providing public services (or participate in drafting, and executing these decisions, coordinating and/or controlling the implementation thereof, etc.), however, they do not exercise any functions while exercising state power (like members of the Seimas, President of the Republic, members of the Government and judges do), and that the notion “state service” which is used in the Constitution does not comprise the duties of a member of the Seimas, the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister or a Minister, a judge, as well as a member of municipal council.

It should be emphasised that the fact that someone becomes a member of the Seimas, the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister or a Minister is a result of the political process, an election to the Seimas, an election to the office of the President of the Republic, or the formation of the Government respectively. The bases and procedure of appointing the justices of the Constitutional Court are established in Article 103 of the Constitution, those for judges of other courts—in Article 112 of the Constitution; it is worth noting in this context that the appointment of the justices of the Constitutional Court and judges of other courts depends upon the political will of respective officials of state power (the President of the Republic or the President of the Republic and members of the Seimas). Therefore, although the work of a judge, similarly to the state service, is a professional activity, there are no grounds to state that the same requirement of “equal conditions” (consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution) should be applied to the becoming a member of the Seimas, the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister or a Minister, and a judge as it is applied to the entering into the state service.

The result of political activity, under the Constitution, is becoming a member of municipal council as well. It is established in Paragraph 2 of Article 119 of the Constitution that members of municipal councils are elected for a four-year term, as provided for by law, from among citizens of the Republic of Lithuania and other permanent residents of the administrative unit by the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania and other permanent residents of the administrative unit, on the basis of universal, equal and direct electoral right by secret ballot.

Thus, the right of a citizen to enter into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions, as entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution, does not comprise his constitutional right to seek to become elected (if he meets the conditions established in the Constitution and laws) a member of the Seimas, the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister or a Minister, and a member of the municipal council, nor the right to become (if he meets the conditions established in the Constitution and laws) a justice of the Constitutional Court or a judge of any other court, which are implied by other provisions of the Constitution. The said rights and the right of a citizen to enter into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions are different subjective rights.

26. The state service is a professional activity performed by an employee of a state or municipal institution, i.e. it is work activity. Thus, the right to enter into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions, entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution, is linked with the right of every person to freely choose a job, entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution. In this regard the provision “Citizens shall have the right to <…> enter into the State service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions” of Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution is both lex specialis and lex generalis linked with the provision “each human being may freely choose a job and business” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

It should be noted that the right of each person to freely choose a job in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution is formulated broader—as the right of each person “to freely choose a job and business”. The Constitutional Court has held that the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution that every person may freely choose an occupation and business is a norm of common nature based on universally recognised concept of human freedom (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 4 March 1999) and this means an opportunity to choose a type of occupation at one’s own discretion, i.e. by deciding freely on this subject (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 10 July 1996), and that the freedom to freely choose a job and business, entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, is one of the necessary conditions for satisfying human vital needs, and of ensuring his appropriate place in society (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 4 March 1999 and 4 July 2003).

Thus, under the Constitution, the person who seeks to implement his constitutional right to work, has the right to decide freely, whether to choose a work in private sector or a private business, or to seek to become admitted to the state service. The provision “each human being may freely choose a job and business” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution implies the duty of the state and the legislature to create legal conditions for implementation of this right (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 4 March 1999 and 4 July 2003).

27. The constitutional right of the citizen to enter into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions, as a version of the constitutional right of each person to freely choose a job, especially upon considering the provision “under equal conditions” of Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution, should be linked with the constitutional principle of the equality of persons (equality of persons before the law, the court and other state institutions and officials).

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 he be granted any privileges on the grounds of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, social status, beliefs, convictions, or views.”

When construing the provisions of Article 29 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has held more than once that the constitutional principle of the equality of all persons, which must be followed in the course of the passage of laws and in their application, and when administering justice, obligates one to legally assess homogenous facts in the same manner and prohibits any arbitrary assessment of essentially the same facts in a varied manner, that the constitutional principle of the equality of all person means the natural right of the person to be treated in the same manner as others are and consolidates the formal equality of all persons, and that persons may not be discriminated or that they may not be granted privileges. Moreover, the Constitutional Court has noted many a time that the constitutional principle of the equality of all persons does not deny the fact that unequal (differentiated) legal regulation in regard to certain categories of persons, who are in different situations, may be established in the law; that variety of social life may determine the manner and content of legal regulation. The Constitutional principle of the equality of persons does not deny an opportunity to treat individuals, while taking account of their status or situation, in a different manner (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 30 December 2003). However, the constitutional principle of the equality of all persons before the law would be violated if a certain group of people for which the legal norm is established, if compared to other addresses of the same legal norms, were treated differently even though there are not any differences in their character and extent between these groups so that such uneven treatment would be objectively justified (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 20 November 1996 and 30 December 2003).

In this context, it should be stressed that the citizens who seek to become admitted to the state service may not be discriminated, nor they may be granted privileges on the grounds expressis verbis specified in Paragraph 2 of Article 29 of the Constitution or any other constitutionally unjustifiable grounds.

It is worth noting also that the constitutional imperative of equal conditions when entering the state service implies the competition between those who enter it, as well as objective, impartial assessment and selection of those who enter into the state service. The legislature enjoys certain discretion to establish particularities of admission to the state service in regard to the persons whose term of office at the state service is linked with the term of office of the President of the Republic, members of the Seimas, members of the Government, and members of municipal councils. According to the Constitution, the person who believes that the principle of equal rights, thus, his constitutional right to enter into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions as well, was violated when he attempted to enter into the state service, has the right to seek to defend his violated right at court.

28. The Constitutional Court has held that while creating the legal preconditions for implementation of the right to freely choose a job or business, the legislature is empowered, while taking account of the nature of a job, to establish the conditions of implementation of the right to freely choose a job; while doing this, he must observe the Constitution (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 4 July 2003). It was held in the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 4 March 1999: “Implementing its obligation to ensure national security and proper guidance of young people, to secure education, credible financial system, the protection of state secrets etc., the state is entitled to establish additional, special requirements for those who wish to work in the main areas of economy and business.” It is held in the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 10 July 1996 that “certain qualifications, professional knowledge and skills, however, are necessary for complex work, therefore, corresponding requirements for persons who aspire to complex or obligated work are held indisputable and, as a rule, universally recognised” and that “the requirements of professional competence do not contradict the human right to freely choose an occupation or business”.

The constitutional purpose of the state service and special tasks assigned to the state service determine that certain common requirements—the general conditions of entering the state service—may and must be set for the citizen who enters into the state service, and the person who fails to meet them will not be able to become a state servant. It should be stressed that the said requirements must be clear and common to all those who seek to hold a respective position at the state service, and they must be known in advance to the one who enters into the state service. They must be set by law.

The following common requirements—the general conditions of entering into the state service—should be mentioned: loyalty to the State of Lithuania and its constitutional order, knowledge of the Constitution and bases of the legal system (including the catalogue of human rights and freedoms), good knowledge of the state language, the absence of a conflict between the position sought and private interests (or the removal of such a conflict before the persons starts holding the position), etc. Moreover, general requirements linked with personal characteristics of the person entering to the state service, his reputation, education, etc. may be established. The constitutionally reasonable general conditions preventing the person from entering into the state service may also be provided for.

29. The requirements of professionalism and qualification which are raised before the state service as a system imply respective requirements for the persons who enter into the state service as well. It has also been mentioned that the relations of the state service may and must be regulated in a differentiated manner, while taking account of the particularities of state (municipal) institutions and the functions fulfilled by them, the role of these institutions in the system of all institutions through which state functions are implemented, their competence, the professional skills necessary to respective state servants, and other important factors. Therefore, the special requirements for the persons striving for particular duties at the state service or a concrete state or municipal institution—special conditions for those who seek to join the state service—may be established by legal acts. These special conditions of entering into the state service may be differentiated according to the content of respective duties at the state service. When setting the said conditions, one must observe the Constitution. These conditions should also be clear and common to everybody who seeks to be admitted to a respective position at the state service, and they must be known in advance to the ones who enter into the state service.

The following requirements—the special conditions of entering into the state service—as professional competence, experience, knowledge of languages, special knowledge and skills, etc., as well as the requirements linked with the reputation of the person who enters into the state service, his personal characteristics and others, should be mentioned. When admitting one to a certain office, a great variety of special conditions may be provided for, for example, the ones linked with the health of the person, his physical abilities, relations with other persons, etc. It should be emphasised that all the established special requirements of entering into the state service must be constitutionally reasonable. Otherwise, the constitutional right of the citizen to enter into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions and the constitutional right of the person to freely choose a job would be violated as well.

30. The notion “citizen” used in Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution means that the right to enter into the state service is linked with the relation between the person and the State of Lithuania, i.e. citizenship. By the same, account should also be taken of the fact that foreigners and persons with no citizenship, who legally stay in the Republic of Lithuania, enjoy the same rights and freedoms as the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, if the Constitution, laws and international treaties of the Republic of Lithuania do not provide otherwise (the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 24 January 1995). Certain provisions of the Constitution, which consolidate the rights of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as the provision “citizens shall have the right to <…> enter into the State service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions” of Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution may be construed in a broadening sense, i.e. so that the notion “citizen” would include not only citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, but citizens of foreign states and persons with no citizenship as well. Still, this does not mean that the citizens of foreign states and persons with no citizenship may in all cases implement these rights, including the right to enter into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions, as a matter of course, only on the grounds of the Constitution, as the legislature enjoys the powers, while exercising the international obligations of the Republic of Lithuania and acting on the basis of respective international treaties, to establish conditions and procedure of implementation of such rights. In this context, it should be noted that under Paragraph 2 of Article 48 of the Constitution the work of foreigners in the Republic of Lithuania is regulated by law. Since the constitutional right of the citizen to enter into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions is a version of the constitutional right of each person to freely choose a job, thus, the law may provide for conditions and procedure arising from international obligations of the Republic of Lithuania and international treaties, which, in their turn, must not be in conflict with the Constitution, of entering into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania for citizens of foreign states and persons with no citizenship.

In this context it needs to be noted that respective international obligations of the Republic of Lithuania originate from the membership of this country in the European Union, which is constitutionally confirmed by the Constitutional Act of the Republic of Lithuania “On Membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union”, a constituent part of the Constitution.

31. The constitutional right of citizens to enter into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions implies also the right of the persons admitted to the state service to remain state servants until the moment when the relations of the state service are terminated on the grounds established in the law, as well as the right to make a career in the state service, while paying heed to the conditions provided for in the law, attempts of the state servant himself to make a career, as well as to objective possibilities. The state servant must not face unnatural and unreasonable obstacles for making a career in the state service.

Having entered into the state service and having started to hold a respective office in the state service (at a state or municipal institution), the citizen gains the status of a state servant. From this moment in this state or municipal institution he adopts decisions while performing public administration and/or providing public services (or participates in drafting, and executing these decisions, coordinating and/or controlling the implementation thereof, etc.) and, in this way, guarantees the public interest.

32. State servants are a special social group, the specifics of which are determined by the purpose of the state service and its social significance. Therefore, the legal status of state servants, and implementation of the rights and freedoms enjoyed by them under the Constitution and laws, cannot not bear any important characteristics.

Just like the constitutional requirements to the state service as a system imply certain constitutionally reasonable requirements to the persons who seek to implement their constitutional right to enter into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions, the above-mentioned requirements to the state service as a system imply requirements to the state servants.

Under the Constitution, the state servant must properly fulfil his duties while observing the Constitution and law. He must be loyal to the State of Lithuania and its constitutional order, observe the Constitution and laws, respect, protect and defend human rights and freedoms, be impartial and neutral in regard to participants of the political process, be just, avoid the conflict between public and private interests, not succumb to illegal pressure or illegal requirements, not act in an arbitrary manner and not abuse the service, improve his professional competence, follow the requirements of professional ethics, protect the reputation of his own as a state servant and the authority of the institution at which he is employed etc. Decisions adopted by him must be transparent and their reasoning must be clear. The opportunities provided by the state service must not be used for personal benefit or political activity; the state servant may not use his status for a private benefit of his own, his close relatives or other persons. The legal regulation of the relations of the state service must be such so that it would be possible to control whether the aforementioned requirements are not violated. Public and democratic control over the activity of state servants and decisions adopted by them is an important condition of the trust of the society in the state and its law.

Liability of a state servant for violations of law committed while in the state service must be established by law.

33. The legislature enjoys the right to establish certain requirements, which would limit the following activity of state servants which is not related to the state service: other work (business), as well as political and public activity, which could result in the conflict between public and private interests of state servants, and create prerequisites for using the opportunities provided by the state service not for guaranteeing the public interest, but for private interests, and which would hinder state servants from performing their official duties or would be harmful to the authority of the state service or respective state or municipal institution and discredit them.

In its rulings the Constitutional Court has held many a time that, according to the Constitution, it is permitted to impose limitations on the constitutional human rights and freedoms in case the following conditions are observed: this is done by law; the limitations are necessary in a democratic society in an attempt to protect the rights and freedoms of other persons and the values entrenched in the Constitution as well as the constitutionally important objectives; the limitations do not deny the nature and essence of the rights and freedoms; the constitutional principle of proportionality is followed. In its ruling of 6 May 1997, having stated that “the public interest is a dominating one in civil service relations”, the Constitutional Court held that “one should take account of the fact that, from the social standpoint, the public interest, as well as the person’s rights <…>, is a constitutional value”.

When establishing by law the restrictions on other work of state servants it is necessary to follow the principle that, according to the Constitution, these restrictions must be such so that they would help to avoid the conflict between public and private interests in the state service, and which would ensure that the state service and opportunities provided by it are not used for ensuring private interests rather than the public interest, that a state servant is not hindered from performing his official duties, that no harm is made to the authority of the state service or respective state or municipal institution, and that they are not discredited.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it should be emphasised that the constitutional concept of the state service, the constitutional purpose of the state service, the type of it as a professional activity, implies that, while paying heed, inter alia, to the constitutional principle of proportionality, the law should establish such a restriction on other work of state servants, which would prevent state servants from working in the enterprises, establishments, organisations, in regard to which they enjoy the powers of management or the activity of which they control or supervise, or adopt any other decisions related to this enterprise, establishment or organisation (or participate in drafting and executing these decisions, coordinating and/or controlling the implementation thereof, etc.).

34. The association of the constitutional right of the citizens to enter into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions with other rights, which are closely related to the right of each person to work and which are consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution also originates from the right of citizens to enter into the state service of the Republic of Lithuania under equal conditions, entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution, and the right of each person to choose a job freely, entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution: the right to have proper, safe and healthy working conditions, just pay for work, and social security in the event of unemployment. These rights must be guaranteed to the state servant to not less extent than to other employees, however, due to the type of the state service as a specific working activity their implementation may have certain particularities. The same could be said about other social and economic rights entrenched in the Constitution: the right of each working human being to rest and leisure, as well as annual paid holidays, entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 49 of the Constitution, the right to establish trade unions, entrenched in Article 50 of the Constitution, the right 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, entrenched in Article 52 of the Constitution, etc. On the other hand, certain social and economic rights of state servants at respective services may be restricted by law due to particularities of these services or duties of respective state servants, for example, the right of employees to strike while defending their economic and social interests which is entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 51 of the Constitution may be restricted on the basis of Paragraph 2 of this article, wherein it is prescribed that the restrictions of this right, the conditions and procedure for the implementation thereof are established by law.

It goes without saying that the Constitution guarantees to the state servants, like other persons, the right to defend their violated rights in court.

35. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, a separate note should be made of the right to have just pay for work, consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution. This constitutional right is a prerequisite for implementation of a great many other constitutional rights, inter alia, it is one of the most important prerequisites for the implementation of the right to ownership, which is consolidated in Article 23 of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the right appears in regard to the person who has completed a commissioned task, to demand that the whole work remuneration (pay) which is due according to the legal acts be paid to him, and that it be paid in due time. This right of the person (on the basis of Article 23 of the Constitution as well) is guaranteed, protected and defended as the right to ownership.

It has been mentioned that to the extent that the relations of the state service are related with human rights and freedoms they must be regulated by law, while the procedural relations of the state service (and the ones linked thereto) may be regulated by substatutory act as well, however, this should be done so that no competition with the legal regulation established in the law would exist.

Clear criteria on the basis of which the size of work remuneration (pay) is established in regard to the state servants are an essential element of the right of each citizen to receive just pay for work, and they must be established by law. As the professional activity of state servants must be remunerated from the state (municipal) budget, the budget must provide for funds for work remuneration of state servants.

When construing the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right to <…> just pay for work”, consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court, in its ruling of 18 December 2001, held that “the right of every person to adequate compensation for work as established in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, means, in general, that the work remuneration of public servants, which is one of the main pre-conditions for realising their other legitimate interests, must be established by law and paid at the time fixed in the laws.” In the above-mentioned ruling the Constitutional Court also held: “the right to adequate compensation for work guaranteed in the Constitution is directly related to the principle of the equality of all persons before the law, the court, and other state institutions. It is prohibited to diminish one’s work remuneration on the basis of one’s sex, race, nationality, citizenship, political convictions, one’s attitude towards religion, and other circumstances not related to the professional characteristics of the employee, if the functions of work of the employee, the scope of his work etc. have not changed.”

The constitutional right to receive just pay for work is linked with the constitutional principle of protection of legitimate interests as well. The Constitutional Court held that “in cases when a certain work remuneration has been established for a person by legal acts, then this remuneration must be paid throughout the duration of the established time”, as well as that “the principle of protection of legitimate expectations is linked with the duty of all state institutions to observe the undertaken obligations”, and that “persons have the right to reasonably expect that the rights acquired under the valid legal acts will be retained for the established period of time and will be implemented in reality” (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 18 December 2001). The legal regulation may be changed only by following the procedure established in advance and by not violating the principles and norms of the Constitution, it is necessary, inter alia, to follow the principle lex retro non agit, and it is not permitted to deny the legitimate interests and legitimate expectations of the person by the changes of the legal regulation (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 12 July 2001, 18 December 2001, and 4 July 2003).

According to the Constitution, a legal situation, where a state servant, who fulfilled the assigned task, is not paid, is paid not in due time or is paid less than it is due according to the laws and other legal acts passed on the basis of the former, is impermissible. Taking into consideration the link between the right of each citizen to receive just pay for work and the right to ownership, it should be held that such legal situation would mean that legal preconditions are created to violate by legal acts the constitutional right to ownership too, thus, not only Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, but Article 23 of the Constitution as well.

The principle of protection of legitimate expectations does not mean that the work remuneration paid to the state servants from the funds of the State Budget or municipal budget, may not be reduced at all, however, this may be done only in exceptional cases and only if it necessary in order to protect the values consolidated in the Constitution. Still, even in such exceptional cases the remuneration for wok may not be reduced in violation of the balance entrenched in the Constitution between the interests of a person and those of the society. It also needs to be noted that the work remuneration may not be reduced only to separate categories of employees who are remunerated for their work from the funds of the state budget or municipal budget. The reduction of work remuneration must be in line with the constitutional principle of proportionality (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 18 December 2001).

36. 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.”

When construing this provision of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has held that the grounds for pensionary maintenance and social assistance are provided for in Article 52 of the Constitution. According to this article of the Constitution, the legislature must establish old age and disability pensions, as well as social assistance in the event of unemployment, sickness, widowhood, and loss of breadwinner by law. Under the Constitution, other pensions or social assistance than those specified in Article 52 of the Constitution may be established by law as well (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 23 April 2002, 25 November 2002, 4 July 2003, and 30 January 2004). According to the Constitution, the grounds for pensionary maintenance, the persons who are granted and paid pensions, the conditions of granting and payment of pensions, as well as the amounts of the pensions are established by law only (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 4 July 2003).

The state must fulfil the undertaken obligations to the person. A person, who meets the conditions established by law, acquires the right to a pension established by law and may reasonably expect that this his right will be protected and defended by the state; when the pension established by means of a law that is not in conflict with the Constitution is granted and paid, this right and legitimate expectation acquired by the person should also be linked to the protection of the rights of ownership of this person (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 4 July 2003). In its rulings, the Constitutional Court has held more than once that if the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and legal security of the person were not ensured, the trust of the person in the state and law would not be ensured. 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 law, while the persons who meet the conditions provided by law have the right to require that the state grant and pay this pension to them. The said provision of Article 52 of the Constitution implies the duty of the legislature, while he 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 (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 23 April 2002, 4 July 2003, and 3 December 2003).

It was held in the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 25 November 2002 that the provisions of Article 52 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to social assistance to citizens, obligate the state to establish sufficient measures of the implementation and legal protection of this right, thus, not only must the types of pensions and social assistance indicated in this article of the Constitution be established by law but also proper implementation and legal protection of the human right to receive pension and social assistance must be ensured; the provisions of Article 52 of the Constitution imply a duty of the legislature to establish the legal regulation which would ensure the accumulation of funds necessary for pensions and social assistance and the payment of these pensions and the rendering of social assistance.

While establishing the legal regulation according to which the persons who meet the conditions provided by 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 law has the right to demand that the state fulfil the obligation undertaken by law and pay the payments of the established amount (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 4 July 2003). In its ruling of 25 November 2002, the Constitutional Court held that the person who meets the conditions established by law in order to receive the old age pension, and who has been granted and paid this pension, has the right to a monetary payment of a respective amount, i.e. the right of ownership; this right must be protected and defended according to Article 23 of the Constitution as well.

The particularities of the constitutional institute of the state service determine, inter alia, that the legislature enjoys the constitutional powers to establish by law the pensions and/or types of social assistance granted solely to the state service (or individual groups of state servants, the grouping of which is objectively reasonable). The pensions for serving the State of Lithuania may be established by law as well. While establishing such a pension for serving the State of Lithuania, the legislature is bound by the norms and principles of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 4 July 2003), and, inter alia, the constitutional imperative of social harmony, principles of justice, reasonableness and proportionality.

When construing the said provision of the Constitution in the context of regulation of pensions of the state servants—while investigating whether the legal regulation linked with the state pensions of the officials and servicemen, i.e. particular group of the state servants, is not in conflict with the Constitution—in its ruling of 4 July 2003 the Constitutional Court held that pensions for certain service to the State of Lithuania, thus, the state pensions to the officials and servicemen, may also be established by law. Such pensions, by their nature and character, differ from state social insurance pensions (thus, from the old age pension as well)—they are granted to persons for their service to the State of Lithuania and are paid from the State Budget. When establishing such pension for service, the legislature is bound by, inter alia, the constitutional striving for an open, just, harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law.

If, while paying heed to the Constitution, the law provides for a different pension, which is not directly specified in Article 52 of the Constitution, it must be guaranteed, under the Constitution, to the specified persons on the bases and in amounts established in the law (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 10 February 2000).

The legislature, while establishing the pension of officials and servicemen, 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. If the legislature, while regulating pensionary maintenance of officials and servicemen, did not pay heed, inter alia, to imperatives of an open, just, and harmonious civil society and a state under the rule of law that are the consolidated in the Constitution, especially if it did not take into consideration the particularities of service of officials and servicemen, particular type of duties and other important circumstances, the granting and payment of such pension would become a privilege, thus, such pensionary maintenance could not be guaranteed according to the Constitution (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 4 July 2003).

It has also been held in rulings of the Constitutional Court that such an extreme situation in the state (economic crisis, natural disaster, etc.) might occur where there is objective lack of funds for the payment of pensions. In such exceptional 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, 25 November 2002, and 4 July 2003). Still, even in such extraordinary cases it is not permitted that pensions be reduced in violation of the balance between the interests of the person and society, entrenched in the Constitution; such reduction of pensions must be in line with the constitutional principle of proportionality (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 4 July 2003).

It is necessary to pay heed to the Constitution also when reorganising the system of pensionary maintenance established by law; it may only be reorganised by law, only by guaranteeing the old age and disability pensions which are provided for in the Constitution, as well as observing the obligations undertaken by the state, which are not in conflict with the Constitution, to pay respective monetary payments to the persons meeting the requirements established by law; if, while reorganising the pensionary system, the pensions established by means of 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. 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 granting and payment of pensions, the amounts of pensionary maintenance are changed, must provide for a sufficient transition time period during which the persons who have a respective job or who perform respective service which entitles them to a respective pension under the previous regulation, would be able to prepare for these changes (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 4 July 2003).

37. Since, as it has already been mentioned, some other relations which originate when a person finishes to perform his duties in the state service, are closely linked with the relations of the state service, therefore, the constitutional requirements to the state service as a system may result in the fact that (for example, in order to avoid the conflicts of public and private interests, to ensure the trust in the state service, to protect other constitutional values) certain requirements to the former state servants will be established as well. For example, certain limitations on working activity, etc. may be established in their regard. When setting such limitations, it is essential in all cases to pay heed to the norms and principles of the Constitution, the limitations must be proportionate to the objective sought, where such an objective is legitimate and necessary in a democratic society, as well as socially important.

IV

On the compliance of Paragraph 12 (wordings of 29 August 2000 and 21 November 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service and Paragraph 7 (wording of 25 September 2001) of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 33 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

1. By its 5 November 2001 petition the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Paragraph 12 of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 33 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

2. On 8 July 1999, the Seimas adopted the Law on the State Service. The said law went into effect on 30 July 1999.

3. On 29 August 2000, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on the State Service. By Paragraph 4 of Article 43 of the same law Article 62 (wording of 8 July 1999) of the Law on the State Service was supplemented with new Paragraph 12 in which it was established:

Upon the change of the position of a state servant (upon the move of the position from Annex 1 to Annex 2 or vice versa), the service relations of the person holding this position persist—he respectively becomes a state career servant, the head of an establishment or a state servant of political (personal) confidence. The state servant of political (personal) confidence who is elected a member of the municipal council and who has become a career state servant or the head of a civil service establishment of the administration of the same municipality under this paragraph must, within 15 days of the entry into effect of this Law, apply to the Central Electoral Commission with an application concerning his resignation from the position of a member of the municipal council. The person who has not filed the application under the procedure established in Article 86 of the Law on Elections to Municipal Councils within this period shall lose the status of a state servant under Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service.”

4. On 21 November 2000, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending Articles 7, 17, 21, 33, 43, 50, 55, 56, 62, 66, 69, 71, 76, 78 and Annexes 1 and 2 Thereof, by Paragraph 2 of Article 9 whereof Paragraph 12 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service was amended and it was established therein:

Upon the change of the position of a state servant (when the position of the state servant, who became a state servant of political (personal) confidence under Article 15 of Paragraph 4 of Article 62 of this Law, was entered into Annex 2 of this Law or when this position is moved from Annex 1 to Annex 2 or from Annex 2 to Annex 1), the service relations of the person holding this position persist—he respectively becomes a state career servant, the head of an establishment or a state servant of political (personal) confidence. His service relations are legalised by the order (ordinance) of the persons indicated in Paragraph 7 (concerning career state servants) of Article 14, Paragraph 2 (concerning state servants of political (personal) confidence) or Paragraph 5 (concerning heads of establishments) of Article 62 of this Law. The state servants of political (personal) confidence who became career state servants or heads of civil service establishments of the municipal administration in the manner specified in this Paragraph and who were elected members of the council of the same municipality must decide on their subsequent service. The persons who have chosen to continue in the state service must apply to the Central Electoral Commission with an application concerning their resignation from members of the municipal council. The persons who have not filed the application under the procedure established in Paragraph 1 of Article 86 of the Law on Elections to Municipal Councils shall lose the status of a state servant under Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service.”

5. On 23 April 2002, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service by Article 1 whereof it set forth the Law on the State Service in a new wording. On 23 April 2002, the Seimas adopted the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service which went into effect on 4 May 2002. It is provided in Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service that “the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service shall go into effect as of 1 July 2002 save the articles of the Law on the State Service to which other terms of entry into effect have been established by this Law”, while it is established in Paragraph 2 of Article 1 thereof that “Articles 2, 21 and 22 of the Law on the State Service shall go into effect as of 1 May 2002”. Article 62 ceased to exist in the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002).

Under Item 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service, a state servant of the municipal administration is released from office after he begins to hold the office of a member of the council of the same municipality.

6. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, does not indicate in its ruling of 5 November 2001 the compliance of which wording of Paragraph 12 of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service with the Constitution the investigation of which it requests.

It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner doubts whether Article 12 (wordings of 29 August 2000 and 21 November 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with the Constitution.

7. The petitioner requests an investigation into the compliance of entire Paragraph 12 of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service with the Constitution.

It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner doubts whether the provision “The state servant of political (personal) confidence who is elected a member of the municipal council and who has become a career state servant or the head of a civil service establishment of the administration of the same municipality under this paragraph must <…> apply to the Central Electoral Commission with an application concerning his resignation from the position of a member of the municipal council. The person who has not filed the application under the procedure established in Article 86 of the Law on Elections to Municipal Councils within this period shall lose the status of a state servant under Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service” of Paragraph 12 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service as well as the provision “The state servants of political (personal) confidence who became career state servants or heads of civil service establishments of the municipal administration in the manner prescribed in this Paragraph and who were elected members of the council of the same municipality must decide on their subsequent service. The persons who have chosen to continue in the state service must apply to the Central Electoral Commission with an application concerning their resignation from members of the municipal council. The persons who have not filed the application under the procedure established in Paragraph 1 of Article 86 of the Law on Elections to Municipal Councils shall lose the status of a state servant under Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service” of Paragraph 12 (wording of 21 November 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with the Constitution.

8. As mentioned before, the petitioner had doubts whether Paragraph 12 (wordings of 29 August 2000 and 21 November 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict, to the aforementioned extent, with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that an investigation into the compliance of legal acts (parts thereof) with the striving for a just civil society and state under the rule of law, enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, implies an investigation into their compliance with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

9. It has also been held in this Ruling that the petitioner had doubts whether Paragraph 12 of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict, to the aforementioned extent, with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner had doubts as to the compliance of the impugned provisions with not entire Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution but only the provision of Paragraph 1 of this article that each human being may freely choose a job.

10. As mentioned before, one of aspects of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is that similar cases must be decided in a similar manner. Thus, the discretion of jurisdictional institutions in settling disputes and applying law is limited. In its rulings of 12 July 2001 and 30 May 2003 as well as decision of 13 February 2004, the Constitutional Court held that the principle of a state under the rule of law consolidated in the Constitution implies, inter alia, the continuity of jurisprudence. The Constitutional Court, while deciding analogous constitutional disputes, follows the doctrine formulated in previous cases, which discloses the content of the Constitution.

11. In its rulings of 24 December 2002 and 30 May 2003, the Constitutional Court held that the principle of superiority of municipal councils over the executive bodies which are accountable to them is consolidated in the Constitution. This principle means, inter alia, that municipal councils enjoy the powers to exercise control on the executive bodies which are accountable to them. Thus, under the Constitution, the bodies accountable to municipal councils cannot be formed from members of the municipal councils that form them.

In its ruling of 30 May 2003, the Constitutional Court held the following:

Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Local Self-Government provides that the director of the municipal administration shall be the executive institution of the municipality. Under Paragraph 2 of Article 29 of this law, the director of the municipal administration is the head of the establishment subordinate to the municipal council and accountable to the mayor. The municipal administration is a municipal establishment which consists of structural and structural-territorial divisions—neighbourhoods (branch offices), civil servants and other public servants not included into structural divisions (Paragraph 1 of Article 29). Paragraph 4 of Article 29 of the same law provides that the municipal council shall decide on the establishment of the office of the deputy director of the administration or the substitution of the director of the administration. Servants of the municipal administration shall be accountable to the director of the municipal administration (Paragraph 8 of Article 29).

Since, under the Constitution, the executive bodies accountable to municipal councils may not be formed from among members of the municipal councils which establish them, the director of the municipal administration, his deputy, and a public servant of the municipal administration may not be members of the municipal council at the same time.”

It was construed in the Constitutional Court’s decision of 13 February 2004 that the provision “<…> officials of the institutions accountable to the municipal council <…> may not be members of the municipal councils at the same time” means that if the laws provide that heads of municipal establishments and enterprises or their officials are accountable to municipal councils for the activities of their or other respective establishments and enterprises, then they may not be members of the municipal councils at the same time.

12. In the provision “The state servant of political (personal) confidence who is elected a member of the municipal council and who has become a career state servant or the head of a civil service establishment of the administration of the same municipality under this paragraph must <…> apply to the Central Electoral Commission with an application concerning his resignation from the position of a member of the municipal council. The person who has not filed the application under the procedure established in Article 86 of the Law on Elections to Municipal Councils within this period shall lose the status of a state servant under Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service” of Paragraph 12 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service as well as the provision “The state servants of political (personal) confidence who became career state servants or heads of civil service establishments of the municipal administration in the manner specified in this Paragraph and who were elected members of the council of the same municipality must decide on their subsequent service. The persons who have chosen to continue in the state service must apply to the Central Electoral Commission with an application concerning their resignation from members of the municipal council. The persons who have not filed the application under the procedure established in Paragraph 1 of Article 86 of the Law on Elections to Municipal Councils shall lose the status of a state servant under Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service” of Paragraph 12 (wording of 21 November 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service precisely such legal regulation was established under which the office of a state servant of the municipal administration is incompatible with the office of a member of the council of the same municipality and under which the state servant of the municipal administration must choose whether he will continue to hold office in the state service and to refuse the mandate of a member of the municipal council, or to hold the office of a member of the municipal council and lose the office in the state service of the municipal administration.

16. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be held that the provision “The state servant of political (personal) confidence who is elected a member of the municipal council and who has become a career state servant or the head of a civil service establishment of the administration of the same municipality under this paragraph must <…> apply to the Central Electoral Commission with an application concerning his resignation from the position of a member of the municipal council. The person who has not filed the application under the procedure established in Article 86 of the Law on Elections to Municipal Councils within this period shall lose the status of a state servant under Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service” of Paragraph 12 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service as well as the provision “The state servants of political (personal) confidence who became career state servants or heads of civil service establishments of the municipal administration in the manner specified in this Paragraph and who were elected members of the council of the same municipality must decide on their subsequent service. The persons who have chosen to continue in the state service must apply to the Central Electoral Commission with an application concerning their resignation from members of the municipal council. The persons who have not filed the application under the procedure established in Paragraph 1 of Article 86 of the Law on Elections to Municipal Councils shall lose the status of a state servant under Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service” of Paragraph 12 (wording of 21 November 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service were not in conflict with the Constitution, thus, also with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 33, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

17. By its 5 November 2001 ruling, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Paragraph 7 of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government is not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, Paragraph 1 of Article 33 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

18. On 7 July 1994, the Seimas adopted the Law on Local Self-government. Under Article 31 of this law, this law went into effect on the first day after the election to municipal councils of the Republic of Lithuania, i.e. on 26 March 1995.

19. On 12 October 2000, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending the Law on Local Self-government, by Article 1 whereof it set forth the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 7 July 1994 with subsequent amendments and supplements) in a new wording. This law went into effect on 27 October 2000.

It was provided in Paragraph 7 (wording of 12 October 2000) of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government: “Servants of the municipal administration cannot be members of the council of the municipality in which they work.”

It was provided in Item 7 (wording of 12 October 2000) of Paragraph 4 of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government that the municipal administrator appoints and releases, under procedure established in the Law of State Service, civil servants and state employees as well as heads of establishments that render public services, coordinates and controls their work and performs other functions of personal supervision that he is assigned with by the Law on the State Service.

20. On 25 September 2001, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 11, 15, 17, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 36, 37 of the Law on Local Self-government by Article 7 whereof it amended and supplemented Article 29 (wording of 12 October 2000) of the Law on Local Self-government. Under the aforementioned law, Paragraph 7 (wording of 12 October 2000) of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government became Paragraph 10, while Item 7 (wording of 12 October 2000) of Paragraph 4 of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government became Item 7 of Paragraph 7 of Article 29.

It was provided in Paragraph 7 (wording of 25 September 2001) of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government:

The municipal administrator shall: <…>

7) appoint and release, under procedure established in the Law on the State Service, civil servants and state employees as well as heads of establishments rendering public services, coordinate and control their work, and perform other functions of personnel management assigned to him by the Law on the State Service <…>”.

21. On 28 January 2003, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending Articles 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 49, 50 of the Law on Local Self-government and Recognition of Article 19 Thereof as No Longer Valid, by Article 15 whereof it amended Article 29 (wording of 25 September 2001) of the Law on Local Self-government: the legal regulation established in Item 7 (wording of 25 September 2001) of Paragraph 7 of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government, after it had been amended, was moved to Item 5 of Paragraph 7 of Article 29 of this law.

It was established in Item 5 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Paragraph 7 of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government that the director of the municipal administration shall appoint and release, under procedure established in laws, state servants and other employees of the municipal administration, coordinate and control the work of establishments rendering public services, and perform other functions of personnel management assigned to him by the Law on the State Service and the municipal council.

Paragraph 10 (wording of 25 September 2001) of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government was not amended by the Law on Amending Articles 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 49, 50 of the Law on Local Self-government and Recognition of Article 19 Thereof as No Longer Valid.

22. On 4 July 2003, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending Articles 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 36, 38, 41 of the Law on Local Self-government and Supplementing Thereof with Article 291 by Article 12 whereof it amended Article 29 (wording of 28 January 2003) of the Law on Local Self-government: the legal regulation established in Item 5 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Paragraph 7 of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government, after it had been amended, was moved to Item 6 (wording of 4 July 2003) of Paragraph 5 of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government.

It was established in Item 6 (wording of 4 July 2003) of Paragraph 5 of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government that the director of the municipal administration shall appoint and release, under procedure established in laws, state servants and other employees of the municipal administration, coordinate and control the work of establishments rendering public services, and perform other functions of personnel management assigned to him by the Law on the State Service and the municipal council (save appointment to and release from office of heads of establishments rendering public services and imposition of penalties upon them).

23. The petitioner does not point out in his petition as to which wording, in his opinion, of Paragraph 7 of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government, is in conflict with the Constitution.

It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner doubts whether Paragraph 7 (wording of 25 September 2001) of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government is not in conflict with the Constitution.

24. As mentioned before, under Paragraph 7 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government, the municipal administrator shall appoint and release, under procedure established in laws, civil servants and state employees as well as heads of establishments rendering public services, coordinate and control their work, and perform other functions of personnel management assigned to him by the Law on the State Service and the municipal council (Item 7).

The petitioner requests an investigation into the compliance of entire Paragraph 7 of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government.

It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner doubts not as concerns entire Paragraph 7 (wording of 25 September 2001) of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government, but only as to whether the provision “The municipal administrator shall: <…> (7) <…> release, under procedure established in the Law on the State Service, civil servants and state employees as well as heads of establishments rendering public services from office <…>” of the same paragraph is not in conflict with the Constitution.

25. It was also mentioned that the petitioner requests an investigation into whether Paragraph 7 (wording of 25 September 2001) of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government to the aforesaid extent is not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law which are entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that an investigation into the compliance of legal acts (parts thereof) with the striving for a just civil society and state under the rule of law, enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, implies an investigation into their compliance with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

26. As mentioned before, the petitioner had doubts whether Paragraph 7 (wording of 25 September 2001) of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government to the aforesaid extent is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner had doubts as to the compliance of the impugned provision with not entire Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, but only with the provision of Paragraph 1 of this article that each human being may freely choose a job.

27. It has been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional Court that, under the Constitution, the bodies accountable to municipal councils cannot be formed from members of the municipal councils that form them, and the director of the municipal administration, his deputy, a servant of the municipal administration cannot be also members of the council of this municipality at the same time.

Under the Constitution, in order to implement the requirement stemming from the Constitution not to form the bodies accountable to municipal councils from members of the municipal council that forms these bodies, the legislature has a duty to establish as to who (and in what way) implements this constitutional requirement.

28. Under Item 7 (wording of 25 September 2001) of Paragraph 7 of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government, the municipal administrator releases, under procedure established in the Law on the State Service, civil servants and state employees as well as heads of establishments rendering public services from office. Thus, the legal subject is specified in this provision of the law, who enjoys the powers, inter alia, to release a state servant from office under procedure established in the Law on the State Service.

In the context of the case at issue, it should be noted that while taking account of Item 4 (wordings of 8 July 1999, 29 August 2000, and 21 November 2000) of Paragraph 2 of Article 56 and Paragraph 12 (wordings of 29 August 2000 and 21 November 2000) of the Law on the State Service, the municipal administrator has a duty to release a state servant from office when the latter begins to hold the office of a member of the council of the same municipality.

29. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be held that the provision “The municipal administrator shall: <…> (7) <…> release, under procedure established in the Law on the State Service, civil servants and state employees as well as heads of establishments rendering public services from office <…>” of Paragraph 7 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 29 of the Law on Local Self-government was not in conflict with the Constitution, thus, also with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 33, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

V

On the compliance of Item 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 17 and Item 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Paragraph 4 of Article 29 of the Law on the State Service and Paragraph 6 (wording of 4 July 2002) of Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

1. By its ruling of 18 April 2003, the Alytus District Local Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Item 4 of Article 17 of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with Articles 23, 29, and 48 of the Constitution.

2. As mentioned before, on 23 April 2002, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service by Article 1 whereof it set forth the Law on the State Service in a new wording. It was provided in Article 2 of Law on Amending the Law on the State Service that the procedure of entry into effect and implementation of this law shall be established by the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service.

3. As mentioned before, the Alytus District Local Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Item 4 of Article 17 of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with the Constitution.

There are only two articles in the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002); there is no Article 17 in this law. Article 17 due to the compliance of Item 4 whereof with the Constitution the petitioner had doubts was set forth in the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002).

Taking account of this, it should be held that the petitioner had doubts whether Item 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

4. The Alytus District Local Court, a petitioner, had doubts whether Item 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with entire Article 23 of the Constitution and entire Article 48 of the Constitution.

It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner had doubts as to the compliance of Item 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on the State Service with not entire Article 23 of the Constitution but only with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article, and not with entire Article 48 of the Constitution but only with the provision of Paragraph 1 of this article that each human being may freely choose a job and business.

5. It was established in Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service:

The state servant shall be prohibited from: <…>

4) working as a hired employee, advisor, expert or consultant in private legal persons, in state or municipal enterprises, in public establishments, as well as receiving work remuneration other than established by this Law, save the work remuneration in all level electoral and referendum commissions and for work under contracts with electoral and referendum commissions, for scientific and educational work in schools of higher education or establishments of state servants’ qualification raising, for informal adult education, for preparation of draft legal acts (unless this function is specified in the description of the position of the state servant), when he is assigned, by means of a Seimas resolution or a decision of the Board of the Seimas, an ordinance of the Speaker of the Seimas, a decree of the President of the Republic, a government resolution or an ordinance of the Prime Minister, with the preparation of draft legal acts, and save the royalties for production which is subject to intellectual property rights <…>”.

6. While assessing the legal regulation consolidated in the said provision of Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service, it is clear that under this regulation the state servant was permitted to work in all level electoral and referendum commissions and to work under contracts with electoral and referendum commissions, to perform scientific and educational work in schools of higher education or establishments of state servants’ qualification raising, to perform work related to informal adult education, to prepare draft legal acts (unless this function is specified in the description of the position of the state servant), when he is assigned, by means of a Seimas resolution or a decision of the Board of the Seimas, an ordinance of the Speaker of the Seimas, a decree of the President of the Republic, a government resolution or an ordinance of the Prime Minister, with the preparation of draft legal acts and to receive remuneration for this, as well as royalties for production which is subject to intellectual property rights.

The provision “The state servant shall be prohibited from: <…> (4) working as a hired employee, advisor, expert or consultant in private legal persons, in state or municipal enterprises, in public establishments, as well as receiving work remuneration other than established by this Law” of Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service, when one takes account of the exceptions established in Item 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 17 of this law, means that the state servant is prohibited from working other work save that permitted under this item of the Law on the State Service, and from receiving other work remuneration save that that he may receive under this item of the Law on Public Service.

7. In the context of the case at issue it is important to elucidate whether the limitations on the state servant established in the impugned provision of Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service to work in another work place and receive other remuneration, as well as the permission to work certain work and to receive remuneration for it, are constitutionally grounded.

8. It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that state servants are a special social group, the specifics of which are determined by the purpose of the state service and its social significance, that constitutional requirements to the state service imply certain requirements to state servants, that the legal status of state servants, and implementation of the rights and freedoms enjoyed by them under the Constitution and laws, cannot not bear any important characteristics.

It was also held that the legislature, under the Constitution, enjoys the right to establish certain requirements, which would limit the activity of state servants which is not related to the state service. It was mentioned that, according to the Constitution, it is permitted to impose limitations on human rights and freedoms if: this is done by law; the limitations are necessary in a democratic society in an attempt to protect the rights and freedoms of other persons and the values entrenched in the Constitution as well as the constitutionally important objectives; the limitations do not deny the nature and essence of the rights and freedoms; the constitutional principle of proportionality is followed.

By legislatively establishing the limitations on other work done by the state servants, it is necessary to take account of the fact that, under the Constitution, these limitations must be such so that they help to evade the conflict between state and private interests in the state service, that the state service and the opportunities it provides are not used in private interests but for guaranteeing the state interest, that the state servant is not hindered from performing his duties of office, that the authority of the state service or of respective state or municipal institution is not damaged, that they are not discredited, that the way is blocked to state servants to work in the enterprises, establishments and organisations in whose respect they enjoy the authoritative powers or whose activities they control and supervise, or adopt certain other decisions related with this enterprise, establishment or organisation (or they participate in the preparation, execution, coordination and/or control of these decisions etc.).

9. It has been mentioned that under the impugned provision of Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service, the state servant was permitted to work in all level electoral and referendum commissions and to work under contracts with electoral and referendum commissions, to perform scientific and educational work in schools of higher education or establishments of state servants’ qualification raising, to perform work related to informal adult education, to prepare draft legal acts (unless this function is specified in the description of the position of the state servant), when he is assigned, by means of a Seimas resolution or a decision of the Board of the Seimas, an ordinance of the Speaker of the Seimas, a decree of the President of the Republic, a government resolution or an ordinance of the Prime Minister, with the preparation of draft legal acts and to receive remuneration for this, as well as royalties for production which is subject to intellectual property rights.

Thus, in the impugned provision of Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service the legal regulation was established where the state servant was permitted to work in another work place and receive other remuneration regardless of any circumstances. Thus, under the said legal regulation, the state servant is permitted to work also in a such work place and receive other remuneration even in the cases when this may be incompatible with the guaranteeing of the public interest in the state service, with the prohibition on using the state service in private interests, with the prohibition on engaging in activities discrediting the authority of the state service, with the requirement to ensure that a person, who holds an office in the state service, properly perform the duties assigned to him, with the prohibition for a state servant to work in the enterprises, establishments, organisations in whose respect he enjoys the authoritative powers or controls and supervises their activities, or adopts certain other decisions concerning this enterprise, establishment or organisation, as well as where there are certain other circumstances due to which state servants cannot work in another work place and receive other remuneration.

By such legal regulation consolidated in Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service one disregarded the constitutional concept of the state service and violated the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

10. As mentioned before, under the impugned provision of Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service, the state servant was prohibited from working as a hired employee, advisor, expert or consultant in private legal persons, in state or municipal enterprises, in public establishments, as well as receiving work remuneration other than established by this law, save the exceptions established in Item 4 of Article 17 of this law.

Thus, in the impugned provision of Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service the legal regulation was established where the state servant was prohibited from working in another work place save the exceptions established in Item 4 of the said article, and from receiving any other remuneration save the exceptions established in Item 4 of the said article regardless of any circumstances. Thus, under the said legal regulation the state servant is prohibited from working in a such work place and receiving such remuneration even in the cases where this does not give rise to the conflict between public and private interests in the state service, where this does not create preconditions for using the state service in personal interests, does not discredit the authority of the state service, does not hinder the person who holds an office in the state service to properly perform the duties assigned to him, also, when this is not the work in the enterprises, establishments and organisations in whose respect the state servant enjoys the authoritative powers or controls and supervises their activity, or adopts certain other decisions in regard of this enterprise, establishment or organisation, and when there are not any other circumstances due to which state servants cannot work in another work place and receive remuneration.

Such a prohibition established in the impugned provision of Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service was disproportionate to the objective sought, it limited the right of state servants to work in another work place and receive remuneration more than was necessary to protect the constitutionally important objectives.

By such legal regulation consolidated in Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service one disregarded the constitutional concept of a state under the rule of law and violated the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being may freely choose a job and business.

11. Alongside, it should be noted that such regulation of the right of state servants to work in another work place and receive other remuneration would be in compliance with the Constitution, under which one could decide in each particular case whether to permit the state servant to work in another work place, by having additionally assessed whether by such a permission no preconditions would be created for the conflict between state and private interests in the state service, for the use of the state service in private interests, for engagement in the activity discrediting the state service, for hindrance of the person who holds an office in the state service to properly perform the duties assigned to him, whether the state servant would not work in the enterprises, establishments and organisations in whose regard he enjoys the authoritative powers or controls and supervises their activities or adopts any other decisions as regards this enterprise, establishment or organisation, whether there are not any other circumstances due to which state servants cannot work in another work place and receive other remuneration. The legislature ought to provide for the subjects, too, who would decide whether to permit or not to permit the state servant to work in another work place and receive other remuneration, and for liability of these subjects for adopted unlawful decisions.

12. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that the provision “The state servant shall be prohibited from: <…> (4) working as a hired employee, advisor, expert or consultant in private legal persons, in public or municipal enterprises, in state establishments, as well as receiving work remuneration other than established by this Law, save the work remuneration in all level electoral and referendum commissions and for work under contracts with electoral and referendum commissions, for scientific and educational work in schools of higher education or establishments of state servants’ qualification raising, for informal adult education, for preparation of draft legal acts (unless this function is specified in the description of the position of the state servant), when he is assigned, by means of a Seimas resolution or a decision of the Board of the Seimas, an ordinance of the Speaker of the Seimas, a decree of the President of the Republic, a government resolution or an ordinance of the Prime Minister, with the preparation of draft legal acts, and save the royalties for production which is subject to intellectual property rights <…>” of Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

13. Having held this, the Constitutional Court will not investigate whether the impugned provision of Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service was not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and Article 29 of the Constitution.

14. On 12 November 2002, the Seimas adopted the Law on Supplementing Article 17 of the Law on the State Service by Article 1 whereof it supplemented Article 17 of the Law on the State Service with Item 5.

On 7 October 2003, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 7, 16, 17, 19, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46 of the Law on the State Service and Supplementing Article 51 Thereto, by Article 5 whereof it amended Item 3 of Article 17 of the Law on the State Service.

By these laws the legal regulation established in Item 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on the State Service was not amended.

15. On 13 July 2004, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 4, 8, 15, 16, 17, 22, 25, 30, 43 of the Law on the State Service by Article 5 whereof it, inter alia, amended Item 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on the State Service and set it forth as follows:

<…> working as a hired employee, advisor, expert or consultant in private legal persons, in state or municipal enterprises, in public establishments, as well as receiving work remuneration other than established by this Law, save the work remuneration in all level electoral and referendum commissions and for work under contracts with electoral and referendum commissions, for scientific and educational work in schools of higher education or establishments of state servants’ qualification raising, for informal adult education, for preparation of draft legal acts (unless this function is specified in the description of the position of the state servant), when he is assigned, by means of a Seimas resolution or a decision of the Board of the Seimas, an ordinance of the Speaker of the Seimas, a decree of the President of the Republic, a government resolution or an ordinance of the Prime Minister, with the preparation of draft legal acts, and save the royalties for production which is subject to intellectual property rights, and the remuneration for the work which is performed in discharging the duties of a member of the municipal council outside office (work) hours or during office (work) hours if during that time the work remuneration of state servants is not to be paid”.

By this legal regulation, if compared with the legal regulation established in Item 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on the State Service, it was additionally stipulated that the state servant may additionally receive remuneration for the work which is performed in discharging the duties of a member of the municipal council outside office (work) hours or during office (work) hours if during that time the work remuneration of state servants is not to be paid.

16. If one compares the provision “The state servant shall be prohibited from: <…> (4) working as a hired employee, advisor, expert or consultant in private legal persons, in state or municipal enterprises, in public establishments, as well as receiving work remuneration other than established by this Law, save the work remuneration in all level electoral and referendum commissions and for work under contracts with electoral and referendum commissions, for scientific and educational work in schools of higher education or establishments of state servants’ qualification raising, for informal adult education, for preparation of draft legal acts (unless this function is specified in the description of the position of the state servant), when he is assigned, by means of a Seimas resolution or a decision of the Board of the Seimas, an ordinance of the Speaker of the Seimas, a decree of the President of the Republic, a government resolution or an ordinance of the Prime Minister, with the preparation of draft legal acts, and save the royalties for production which is subject to intellectual property rights <…>” of Article 17 (wording of 13 July 2004) of the Law on the State Service with the provision “The state servant shall be prohibited from: <…> (4) “<…> working as a hired employee, advisor, expert or consultant in private legal persons, in public or municipal enterprises, in state establishments, as well as receiving work remuneration other than established by this Law, save the work remuneration in all level electoral and referendum commissions and for work under contracts with electoral and referendum commissions, for scientific and educational work in schools of higher education or establishments of state servants’ qualification raising, for informal adult education, for preparation of draft legal acts (unless this functions is specified in the description of the position of the state servant), when he is assigned, by means of a Seimas resolution or a decision of the Board of the Seimas, an ordinance of the Speaker of the Seimas, a decree of the President of the Republic, a government resolution or an ordinance of the Prime Minister, with the preparation of draft legal acts, and save the royalties for production which is subject to intellectual property rights <…>” of Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service, which, as held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court, was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it is clear that these provisions are identical.

17. On the grounds of the same arguments, the conclusion should be drawn that the provision “The state servant shall be prohibited from: <…> (4) working as a hired employee, advisor, expert or consultant in private legal persons, in state or municipal enterprises, in public establishments, as well as receiving work remuneration other than established by this Law, save the work remuneration in all level electoral and referendum commissions and for work under contracts with electoral and referendum commissions, for scientific and educational work in schools of higher education or establishments of state servants’ qualification raising, for informal adult education, for preparation of draft legal acts (unless this function is specified in the description of the position of the state servant), when he is assigned, by means of a Seimas resolution or a decision of the Board of the Seimas, an ordinance of the Speaker of the Seimas, a decree of the President of the Republic, a government resolution or an ordinance of the Prime Minister, with the preparation of draft legal acts, and save the royalties for production which is subject to intellectual property rights <…>” of Article 17 (wording of 13 July 2004) of the Law on the State Service is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

18. By its ruling of 18 April 2003, the Alytus District Local Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Paragraph 6 of Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

19. It has been mentioned that on 23 April 2002 the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service by Article 1 whereof it set forth the Law on the State Service in a new wording, while it was established in Article 2 of the said law that the procedure of entry into effect and implementation of this law shall be established by the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service.

20. On 23 April 2002, the Seimas adopted the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service. This law went into effect on 4 May 2002.

21. On 4 July 2002, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending and Supplementing Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service. The said law went into effect on 19 July 2002.

Article 1 of the Law on Amending and Supplementing Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service provides:

To cross out the words ‘who practice medicine’ in the first sentence of Paragraph 6 of Article 4, to supplement this paragraph with a new second sentence and to set forth the whole paragraph as follows:

6. The state servants who work in the sphere of culture or as teachers in schools of general education and receive remuneration for this, must discontinue this activity within one month of the entry into effect of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service. The state servants who practice medicine must end this practice till 1 January 2003. The state servants who do not discontinue the practice that is prohibited for state servants within the term specified in this Paragraph shall be released from the state service.’”

22. The Alytus District Local Court, a petitioner, does not point out as to which wording of Paragraph 6 of Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service is, in his opinion, in conflict with the Constitution.

The legal regulation impugned by the petitioner is established in Paragraph 6 (wording of 4 July 2002) of Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service.

23. The Alytus District Local Court, a petitioner, had doubts whether Paragraph 6 (wording of 4 July 2002) of Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service was not in conflict with entire Article 48 of the Constitution.

It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that that the Alytus District Local Court, a petitioner, had doubts as to the compliance of Paragraph 6 (wording of 4 July 2002) of Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service with not entire Article 48 of the Constitution, but only with the provision of Paragraph 1 of this article that each human being may freely choose a job and business.

24. In Paragraph 6 (wording of 4 July 2002) of Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service the procedure for implementation of Item 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on the State Service is established.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision “The state servant shall be prohibited from: <…> (4) working as a hired employee, advisor, expert or consultant in private legal persons, in state or municipal enterprises, in public establishments, as well as receiving work remuneration other than established by this Law, save the work remuneration in all level electoral and referendum commissions and for work under contracts with electoral and referendum commissions, for scientific and educational work in schools of higher education or establishments of state servants’ qualification raising, for informal adult education, for preparation of draft legal acts (unless this function is specified in the description of the position of the state servant), when he is assigned, by means of a Seimas resolution or a decision of the Board of the Seimas, an ordinance of the Speaker of the Seimas, a decree of the President of the Republic, a government resolution or an ordinance of the Prime Minister, with the preparation of draft legal acts, and save the royalties for production which is subject to intellectual property rights <…>” of Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

Thus, by the legal regulation established in Paragraph 6 (wording of 4 July 2002) of Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service the provision of Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service which is in conflict with the Constitution is implemented.

23. Taking account of the fact that in this ruling of the Constitutional Court the provision “The state servant shall be prohibited from: <…> (4) working as a hired employee, advisor, expert or consultant in private legal persons, in state or municipal enterprises, in public establishments, as well as receiving work remuneration other than established by this Law, save the work remuneration in all level electoral and referendum commissions and for work under contracts with electoral and referendum commissions, for scientific and educational work in schools of higher education or establishments of state servants’ qualification raising, for informal adult education, for preparation of draft legal acts (unless this function is specified in the description of the position of the state servant), when he is assigned, by means of a Seimas resolution or a decision of the Board of the Seimas, an ordinance of the Speaker of the Seimas, a decree of the President of the Republic, a government resolution or an ordinance of the Prime Minister, with the preparation of draft legal acts, and save the royalties for production which is subject to intellectual property rights <…>” of Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service was ruled to be in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, also, taking account of the fact that by the legal regulation established in Paragraph 6 (wording of 4 July 2002) of Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service the said provision which is in conflict with the Constitution is implemented, it should be held that Paragraph 6 (wording of 4 July 2002) of Article 4 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service is also in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

26. By its ruling of 18 April 2003, the Alytus District Local Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of Article 29 of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

27. As mentioned before, on 23 April 2002 the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service by Article 1 whereof it set forth the Law on the State Service in a new wording. It was established in Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service that the procedure of entry into effect and implementation of this law shall be established by the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service.

The Law on Amending the Law on the State Service did not use to contain Article 29. Article 29, regarding the compliance of Item 1 of Paragraph 4 of which with Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution the petitioner had doubts, was set forth in the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002). Taking account of this, it should be held that the petitioner had doubts whether Item 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Paragraph 4 of Article 29 of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

28. Paragraph 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 29 of the Law on the State Service used to provide:

An official penalty—release from office—may be imposed for:

1) engaging in activities incompatible with the state service <…>”.

29. On 4 July 2003, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 4, 9, 14, 15, 16, 29, 30 of the Law on the State Service by Article 7 whereof it amended Article 29 of the Law on the State Service.

Paragraph 4 (wording of 4 July 2003) of Article 29 of the Law on the State Service provides:

The official penalty—release from office—may be imposed for gross malfeasance, as well as for other malfeasance provided the official penalty—severe reprimand—was applied against the state servant during the last 12 months.”

It needs to be noted that under Item 5 (wording of 4 July 2003) of Paragraph 6 of Article 29 of the Law on the State Service engaging in activities incompatible with the state service is regarded as gross malfeasance. Thus, the legal regulation that the official penalty—release from office—may be imposed for engaging in activities incompatible with the state service remained in Paragraph 4 (wording of 4 July 2003) of Article 29 of the Law on the State Service.

30. It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner has doubts as to the compliance of the impugned provisions with not entire Article 23 of the Constitution, but only with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article, as well as with not entire Article 48 of the Constitution, but only with the provision of Paragraph 1 of this article that each human being may freely choose a job and business.

31. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution provide:

Property shall be inviolable.

The rights of ownership shall be protected by law.”

32. Paragraph 4 (wording of 4 July 2003) of Article 29 of the Law on the State Service provides for an official penalty—release from office—when there are the grounds specified in Item 1 of this paragraph, namely, for engaging in activities incompatible with the state service, i.e. the impugned provision regulates not property relations but different ones—the relations of release from the state service. Therefore, in itself the provision impugned by the petitioner cannot be in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution.

33. While deciding whether the provision of Paragraph 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 29 of the Law on the State Service, which is impugned by the petitioner, is not in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution, it should be noted that an official penalty—release from office—when there are the grounds specified in Item 1 of this paragraph, namely, for engaging in activities incompatible with the state service, is established in Paragraph 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 29 of the Law on the State Service. This penalty is established to all state servants and it does not discriminate them either on the grounds expressis verbis indicated in Paragraph 2 of Article 29 of the Constitution, or on any other constitutionally unjustifiable grounds.

Therefore, the conclusion should be drawn that the provision “An official penalty—release from office—may be imposed for: (1) engaging in activities incompatible with the state service <…>” of Paragraph 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 29 of the Law on the State Service was not in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution.

34. Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that each human being may freely choose a job and business.

35. It has been mentioned that Paragraph 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 29 of the Law on the State Service provided for the official penalty—release from office—when there were the grounds specified in Item 1 of this paragraph, namely, for engaging in activities incompatible with the state service.

Under the Constitution, the legislature, while establishing prohibitions for state servants to participate in the activity incompatible with the state service, also enjoys the right to established, by means of a law, the measures so that one would observe these prohibitions, also, inter alia, liability for participation in activities incompatible with the state service. One of the sanctions established by law for participation in activities incompatible with the state service may be release from office.

In addition, it must be noted that the state servant has the right to choose freely whether to work in the state service and keep to the established limitations on work and other activity, or to refuse other work or activity. If he does not decide upon this and continues the activity which is incompatible with the state service, he, under Item 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Paragraph 4 of Article 29 of the Law on the State Service, must be released from the state service.

Therefore, the conclusion should be drawn that the provision “An official penalty—release from office—may be imposed for: (1) engaging in activities incompatible with the state service <…>” of Paragraph 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 29 of the Law on the State Service did not violate the right of a person to freely choose a job and business entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

36. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that the provision “An official penalty—release from office—may be imposed for: (1) engaging in activities incompatible with the state service <…>” of Paragraph 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 29 of the Law on the State Service was not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

VI

On the compliance of Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service with Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

1. By its ruling of 3 April 2003, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether the provisions of Article 26 of the Law on the State Service regulating a constituent part of the work remuneration of state servants, extra pay, which do not particularise the amounts of the extra pay, are not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of an open, just and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner does not indicate the wording of the impugned provisions of Article 26 of the Law on the State Service the investigation into which it requests.

It is clear from the arguments of the petition that the petitioner had doubts whether Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with the Constitution.

Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service provides:

1. The following extra pay is paid to state servants:

1) for work on days off, holidays and at night;

2) for work in harmful, highly harmful and hazardous conditions;

3) for performing duties beyond the scope of the normal work load or additional assignments which exceed the established work time. Additional assignments to the state servant must be formulated in writing.

2. The extra pay specified in Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of this Article may not be paid longer than one year after its award save the state servants of political (personal) confidence. If the state servant has to work under the conditions specified in Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of this Article for more than a year, it shall be held that they are of a continuous character. In such a case one shall decide on supplementing the description of the position of the state servant.

3. The extra pay specified in Items 1, 2 and 3 of this Article may not be in excess of 60 percent of the positional salary.”

4. The petitioner had doubts as to the compliance of the impugned provisions of Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service with entire Article 48 of the Constitution.

It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner had doubts whether the impugned provisions of Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service were in conflict with not entire Article 48 of the Constitution, but only with the provision of Paragraph 1 of this article that each human shall have the right to just pay for work.

5. The petitioner had doubts whether the impugned provisions of Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service are not in conflict with the principles of an open, just and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution.

It has been held in this Ruling that the investigation of the compliance of legal acts (parts thereof) with the enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution striving for a just civil society and a state under the rule of law implies the investigation of their compliance with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

6. It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner had doubts whether Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with the Constitution in the aspect that this article does not particularise the amounts of the extra pay.

7. The legal regulation consolidated in Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service is related with the legal regulation consolidated in Article 23 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service.

Article 23 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service provides:

1. The work remuneration of state servants shall be composed of:

1) the positional salary;

2) additional pay;

3) extra pay.

2. The amount of the additional and extra pay combined cannot exceed 70 percent of the positional salary.”

8. In Article 23 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service the constituent parts of the work remuneration of state servants are defined. Under this article, extra pay is one of constituent parts of the work remuneration of state servants.

In Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service the grounds are established under which state servants are paid extra pay: they are paid for work on days off, holidays and at night, for work in harmful, highly harmful and hazardous conditions, and for performing duties beyond the scope of the normal work load or additional assignments which exceed the established work time.

9. As mentioned before, under Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, state servants have the right to have proper, safe and healthy working conditions, to receive just pay for work, and social security in the event of unemployment. It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the right of state servants to receive just pay for work also means that the work remuneration of state servants, which is one of the main preconditions for implementing their other legitimate interests, must be established by law and paid at the time that is established by law, and that the state and municipal budgets must provide for the funds necessary for work remuneration of state servants.

10. It needs to be noted that the diverse character of the state service implies that state servants can perform various work and tasks. State servants can discharge duties during days off and holidays as well as at night, to work in harmful, highly harmful and hazardous or other conditions which deviate from the routine work.

11. As mentioned before, in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution the right to receive just pay for work is entrenched. The principle of just pay for work does not deny the right of the legislature to establish various forms of pay for work to state servants and to establish various constituent parts of work remuneration.

It needs to be noted that, under the Constitution, there may not be any such situation where the state servant who works during days off and holidays as well as at night, in harmful, highly harmful and hazardous conditions, and who performs duties beyond the scope of the normal work load or additional assignments which exceed the established work time would not be paid or where this work would be paid unjustly.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that clear criteria on the basis of which the size of pay for work (work remuneration) is established in regard to the state servants must be established by law, that the professional activity of state servants must be remunerated from the state (municipal) budget, and that the budget must provide for the funds for work remuneration of state servants.

12. While deciding whether Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service, in the aspect indicated by the petitioner, i.e. because this article does not particularise the amounts of the specified extra pay, is not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive just pay for work, one has to take account of the fact that under Article 5 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service laws and other legal acts regulating employment relations and socials guarantees are applied to state servants; their provisions are applied to state servants insofar as their status and social guarantees are not regulated by the Law on the State Service.

It needs to be noted that at the time of the validity of the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002), the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Wages was valid in Article 6 whereof it used to be prescribed that “during a change in normal working conditions, wages shall be as follows: in harmful conditions—at least one and a half the hourly (daily) wage rate (monthly salary) established for employees; in very harmful working conditions—at least double the hourly (daily) wage rate (monthly salary) established for employees”. It used to be established in Article 7 of the Law on Wages that “at least one and a half the hourly wage rate (monthly salary) established for employees shall be paid for overtime and night work (from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.)”, while Article 8 thereof used to provide that “unscheduled work on days off and holidays shall be compensated for by providing another day off within a month or, at the request of the employee, by paying at least double the hourly or daily established wage without providing an additional day off. Employees shall be paid double the hourly or daily wage for work scheduled on holidays.” The Law on Wages became no longer valid on 1 January 2003 after the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania had gone into effect.

Article 193 of the Labour Code provides that for overtime work and work at night the employee is paid not less than one and a half hourly pay (monthly salary). Article 194 of the Labour Code provides that for work on a day off or holiday, if it is not provided for in the schedule, not less than double pay is paid or, at the request of the employee, this is compensated by granting the employee an extra day off within a month, or by adding this day to his annual vacation, and that for scheduled work during a holiday not less than double hourly or day pay is paid. It is established in Article 197 of this code that, inter alia, when the scope of work of the employee is increased, if compared to the established norm, for this work he is paid more in respective proportion.

13. The fact that Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service does not particularise, according to the petitioner, the amounts of extra pay for work on days off, holidays and at night, for work in harmful, highly harmful and hazardous conditions, and for performing duties beyond the scope of the normal work load or additional assignments which exceed the established work time, in itself does not mean that such amounts are not particularised in other laws. There are no preconditions for maintaining that the aforesaid amounts of extra pay ought to be concretised in Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service in particular or in this law in general.

As mentioned before, the respective legal regulation has been established in labour laws: prior to 1 January 2003, it used to be established in the Law on Wages, while as from 1 January 2003 it is established in the Labour Code.

Thus, by the legal regulation established in Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive just pay for work is not violated.

14. While taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

15. While deciding whether Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict, in the aspect pointed out by the petitioner, i.e. that this article does not particularise the amounts of the extra pay indicated therein, with Article 29 of the Constitution, it should be noted that this article does not establish any such legal regulation under which a certain group of state servants would be treated unequally with other groups of servants. Such legal regulation does not violate the constitutional principle of the equality of rights of all persons.

16. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution.

17. While deciding whether Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict, in the aspect pointed out by the petitioner, i.e. that this article does not particularise the amounts of the extra pay indicated therein, with the constitutional principle under the rule of law, it should be noted that there are not any preconditions for asserting that the amounts of extra pay for work on days off, holidays and at night, for work in harmful, highly harmful and hazardous conditions, and for performing duties beyond the scope of the normal work load or additional assignments which exceed the established work time ought to be concretised in Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service in particular or in this law in general.

It has also been mentioned that the amounts of extra pay for work on days off, holidays and at night, for work in harmful, highly harmful and hazardous conditions, and for performing duties beyond the scope of the normal work load or additional assignments which exceed the established work time are provided for in other laws.

18. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the conclusion should be drawn that Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

VII

On the compliance of Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, as well as on the compliance of the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 and the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 53) “On the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants” of 17 January 2003 with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 24 of the Law on the State Service.

1. By its ruling of 21 November 2002, the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 24 of the Law on the State Service.

By its ruling of 7 May 2003, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether the provisions of the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002, which limit the amount of the work remuneration of state servants by taking account of the demand of funds calculated by the establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants, which exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget for a respective year, are not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

2. On 20 May 2002, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002”.

The following was established in this government resolution:

In pursuance of Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 45-1709), the Government of the Republic of Lithuania resolves:

To confirm the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 (annexed).”

3. The Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 confirmed by the government resolution of 20 May 2002 were set forth as follows:

THE RULES OF THE CALCULATION OF THE WORK REMUNERATION OF STATE SERVANTS FOR THE SECOND HALF-YEAR OF 2002

1. According to these rules will the work remuneration of state servants be calculated provided in the second half-year of 2002 the demand for work remuneration of state servants exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and municipal budgets.

2. This calculation of the work remuneration of state servants shall be carried out by state and municipal institutions or establishments according to the indexation coefficient.

3. The indexation coefficient shall be calculated according to this formula:

K = A : L, where

K means the indexation coefficient;

A means the funds of the state and municipal institution or establishment for the work remuneration of state servants and state social insurance payments;

L means the funds necessary for the work remuneration of state servants of the state and municipal institution or establishment, which are calculated under Chapter VI of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service and the funds necessary for state social insurance payments.

4. When applying the indexation coefficient established in Item 3 of these Rules, the work remuneration of state servants shall be calculated under this formula:

B = K x D, where:

D means the work remuneration of state servants under Chapter VI of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service;

K means the indexation coefficient;

B means the calculated work remuneration.”

4. It has been mentioned that the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court and the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, petitioners, had doubts as to whether the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 confirmed by the government resolution of 20 May 2002 are not in conflict with the Constitution.

It needs to be noted that the Rules are a constituent part of the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002.

The Constitutional Court has held that all parts of a normative legal act (including annexes) constitute one whole, they are inseparably interrelated and have equal legal force, that it is impossible to separate annexes from the legal acts, since, when the legal regulation established in the annexes is changed, the entire content of the legal regulation established in the legal acts is changed as well (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 9 July 1999 and 29 October 2003).

5. As the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 were as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002, in this case the Constitutional Court will investigate the compliance of not only the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 which were confirmed by the aforesaid government resolution and are being impugned by the petitioners, with the Constitution, but also the compliance of the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 itself, whereby the said rules were confirmed and which contains no other regulation, with the Constitution.

6. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 are not in conflict with entire Article 23 and entire Article 48 of the Constitution.

It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner had doubts as to the compliance of the said rules with not entire Article 23 of the Constitution but only with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article, and not with entire Article 48 of the Constitution, but only with the provision of Paragraph 1 of this article that each human being shall have the right to receive just pay for work.

7. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 are not in conflict with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that an investigation into the compliance of legal acts (parts thereof) with the striving for a just civil society and state under the rule of law, enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, implies an investigation into their compliance with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

8. The Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 were as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 in the course of the state service reform. One of the stages of the this reform should be linked with Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service which was adopted by the Seimas on 23 April 2002, whereby the until then valid Law on the State Service (wording of 8 July 1999) was set forth in a new wording.

The Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002) established, inter alia, that positions of state servants are of three levels and that positions of state servants are grouped into 20 categories, meanwhile, the Law on the State Service (wording of 8 July 1999) used to contain different provisions: state servants used to be grouped into two groups, the positions of state servants used to be grouped into four levels and 30 categories. It is clear from the legal regulation consolidated in the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002) that in the course of the reform of the state service, among the other objectives was the one to increase the work remuneration of state servants.

9. It needs to be noted that under the Constitution the legislature, while issuing a law or other legal act for the implementation of which funds are necessary, must provide for the funds necessary for the implementation of such a law or other legal act. Under the Constitution, the legislature cannot create any such legal situation when a law or other legal act is passed for the implementation of which funds are necessary, but such funds are not appropriated or there is insufficient appropriation thereof.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it should be noted that the legislature, when adopting, on 23 April 2002, the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service for the implementation of which additional funds were necessary, had to make respective amendments to the State Budget and provide for the funds that were necessary so that this law would have been implemented.

10. As mentioned before, under Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution state servants have the right to receive just pay for work. Since the professional activity of state servants must be remunerated from the state (municipal) budget, these budgets must provide for funds for the work remuneration of state servants.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that, according to the Constitution, a legal situation, where a state servant who fulfilled the assigned task is not paid, is paid not in due time or is paid less than it is due according to the laws and other legal acts passed on the basis of the former, is impermissible.

11. As mentioned before, according to the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002, the work remuneration of state servants was calculated provided in the second half-year of 2002 the demand for work remuneration of state servants exceeded the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and municipal budgets; this calculation of the work remuneration of state servants shall be carried out by state and municipal institutions or establishments according to the indexation coefficient.

Thus, in the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 the legal regulation is established under which in cases where a state or municipal institution does not have enough appropriated funds for payment of the work remuneration of state servants a lesser remuneration is calculated to state servants by applying the indexation coefficient than is due under laws or other legal acts passed on their basis and for the work of the state servants only part of the work remuneration that is due to them under laws or other legal acts passed on their basis could be paid.

By such legal regulation preconditions are created to violate the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive just pay for work.

12. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the conclusion should be drawn that the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 were in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

It has been mentioned that, under the Constitution, the right appears in regard to the person who has completed a commissioned task to demand that the whole work remuneration (pay) which is due according to the legal acts be paid to him, and that it be paid in due time. This right of the person is protected as the right to ownership (Article 23 of the Constitution).

13. It has been mentioned that in the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 the legal regulation is consolidated under which in cases where a state or municipal institution does not have enough appropriated funds for payment of the work remuneration of state servants a lesser remuneration is calculated to state servants by applying the indexation coefficient than is due under laws or other legal acts passed on the basis of the former and for the work of the state servants only part of the work remuneration that is due to them under laws or other legal acts passed on the basis of the former could be paid.

By such legal regulation established in the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 preconditions are created to violate Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution.

14. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the conclusion should be drawn that the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 were in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution.

15. It has been mentioned that in the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 the legal regulation is established under which in cases where a state or municipal institution does not have enough appropriated funds for payment of the work remuneration of state servants a lesser remuneration is calculated to state servants by applying the indexation coefficient than is due under laws or other legal acts passed on the basis of the former and for the work of the state servants only part of the work remuneration that is due to them under laws or other legal acts passed on the basis of the former could be paid.

By such legal regulation preconditions were created to state servants to be in unequal legal situations depending on whether a corresponding state or municipal institution was appropriated sufficient funds for work remuneration of state servants, or whether they were insufficient of such funds.

The legal regulation established in the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002, where state servants are in unequal legal situations due to the fact that they are paid for the performed work depending on how much funds have been appropriated for a corresponding state or municipal institution, cannot be regarded as a constitutionally grounded one.

By such legal regulation preconditions are created to violate the constitutional principle of the equality of rights of persons, which is entrenched in Article 29 of the Constitution.

17. Having held that the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 were in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, it should be held that the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 were also in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

18. As mentioned before, all parts of a normative legal act (including annexes) constitute one whole, they are inseparably interrelated and have equal legal force, that it is impossible to separate annexes from the legal act, since, when the legal regulation established in the annexes is changed, the entire content of the legal regulation established in the legal act is changed as well.

Having held that the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 were in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, and Article 29 of the Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it should be held that the entire Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 whereby the said rules were confirmed and which does not contain any other legal regulation, was also in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and Article 29 of the Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

19. Having held this, the Constitutional Court will not investigate whether the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 were not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 24 of the Law on the State Service.

20. By its ruling of 7 May 2003, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether the provisions of Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service, which limit the amount of the work remuneration of state servants by taking account of the demand of funds calculated by the establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants, which exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget for a respective year, are not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 48 of the Constitution.

21. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, does not indicate which is the wording of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service the impugned provisions of Paragraph 3 of Article 1 whereof are, in its opinion, in conflict with the Constitution.

It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner had doubts as to whether the impugned provisions of Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service are not in conflict with the Constitution.

22. Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 1 of the of the said law provides:

The work remuneration established in Chapter VI of the Law on the State Service is paid from the work remuneration appropriations confirmed in the state and municipal budgets of a respective year. If the demand of funds calculated by the state or municipal institution or establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants for work remuneration for state servants exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and municipal budgets for a respective year, the work remuneration of state servants shall be calculated according to the rules of the calculation of the work remuneration of state servants, which are confirmed by the Government, however, the positional salary of a state servant cannot be smaller than that received by him until 30 June 2002.”

23. The petitioner requests an investigation into whether the provisions of Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service, which limit the amount of the work remuneration of state servants by taking account of the demand of funds calculated by the establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants, which exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget for a respective year, are not in conflict with the Constitution.

It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner had doubts whether the provision “If the demand of funds calculated by the state or municipal institution or establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants for work remuneration for state servants exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and municipal budgets for a respective year, the work remuneration of state servants shall be calculated according to the rules of the calculation of the work remuneration of state servants, which are confirmed by the Government, however, the positional salary of a state servant cannot be smaller than that received by him until 30 June 2002” of Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service was not in conflict with the Constitution.

24. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, had doubts whether the provisions of Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service was not in conflict with entire Article 23 and entire Article 48 of the Constitution.

It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner had doubts as to the compliance of the provisions of Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service with not entire Article 23 of the Constitution, but only with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article, and not with entire Article 48 of the Constitution, but only with the provision of Paragraph 1 of this article that each human being shall have the right to receive just pay for work.

25. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether the provisions of Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service are not in conflict with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that an investigation into the compliance of legal acts (parts thereof) with the striving for a just society and state under the rule of law, enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, implies an investigation into their compliance with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

26. Having compared the provision, impugned by the petitioner, of Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service with the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002, it is possible to notice that virtually the same legal regulation is established in Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service as that established in the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002.

In addition, the provision “the positional salary of a state servant cannot be smaller than that received by him until 30 June 2002” is established in Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service.

27. It needs to be noted that the provision “the positional salary of a state servant cannot be smaller than that received by him until 30 June 2002” of Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service does not remove an opportunity, in cases when insufficient funds are appropriated to the state or municipal institution for work remuneration of state servants, to calculate a lesser work remuneration to state servants than is due under the laws or legal acts passed on their basis and to pay for the work performed by the state servants only part of the work remuneration that is due to them under laws or other legal acts passed on their basis, i.e. it is possible that for performed work they could be paid not all but only part of the extra and additional pay that are due to them under the laws or legal acts passed on their basis, and not all but only part of the positional salary that is due to them under laws or other legal acts passed on their basis, provided it increased after 30 June 2002, or it is possible that the state servants could be not paid the extra and additional pay at all.

28. It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 were in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

Having held this and on the basis of the same arguments, it should also be held that the provision “if the demand of funds calculated by the state or municipal institution or establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants for work remuneration for state servants exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and municipal budgets for a respective year, the work remuneration of state servants shall be calculated according to the rules of the calculation of the work remuneration of state servants, which are confirmed by the Government, however, the positional salary of a state servant cannot be smaller than that received by him until 30 June 2002” of Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

29. On 17 January 2003, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 53) “On the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants”.

The said resolution provides:

In pursuance of Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 45-1709), the Government of the Republic of Lithuania resolves:

1. To confirm the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants (annexed).

2. To stipulate that all state servants of state and municipal institutions or establishments are applied the same indexation coefficient, in which work remuneration of state servants is calculated according to the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants which are confirmed by this Resolution.

3. To recognise the Resolution (No. 686) ‘On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002’ of 20 May 2002 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 51-1954) as no longer valid.”

30. The following was set forth in the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants which were confirmed by Item 1 of the Resolution:

THE RULES OF THE CALCULATION OF THE WORK REMUNERATION OF STATE SERVANTS

1.1. The Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) regulate calculation of the work remuneration of state servants by applying the indexation coefficient, if the demand of funds calculated by a state or municipal institution or establishment (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and municipal budgets for a respective year.

2. The indexation coefficient shall be calculated according to this formula:

K = (A – C – S) : L, where

K means the indexation coefficient;

A means the funds confirmed for the establishment for the work remuneration;

C means the funds of the establishment for work remuneration of employees working under employment contract;

S means additional funds of the establishment in order to compensate the difference in the positional salary received prior to 30 June 2002 and the positional salary established under Article 24 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130; 2002, No. 45-1708) to the state servants whose positional salary became, upon the application of the indexation coefficient, lesser than the positional salary received prior to 30 June 2002. In the budget year, when calculating for the first time, the value S shall be zero, while in the course of recalculation the indexation coefficient the value S is established by taking account of the actually paid funds;

L means the funds necessary for the work remuneration of state servants of the establishment, which are calculated under Chapter VI of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service.

3. The work remuneration of state servants shall be calculated according to this formula:

U = P x K + (Pr1 + Pr2) x K, where

U means the work remuneration of state servants under Chapter VI of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service after the indexation coefficient has been applied;

P means the positional salary of the state servant established under Article 24 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service;

Pr1 means the sum of the extra pay established in Article 25 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service;

Pr2 means the sum of bonuses established in Article 26 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service;

K means the indexation coefficient calculated under Item 2 of these Rules.

4. If, upon the application of the indexation coefficient, the positional salary of the state servant established according to Article 24 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service is lesser than the one received prior to 30 June 2002, his work remuneration is calculated under the formula

U = P1 + (Pr1 + Pr2) x K, where

U means the work remuneration of state servants under Chapter VI of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service after the indexation coefficient has been applied;

P1 means the positional salary (official pay) of September 2001 established according to the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 499) “On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1992, No. 3-62), or if the state official was admitted to office in the period from 1 October 2001 till 30 June 2002, the positional salary (official pay), established according to the 29 November 1991 resolution (No. 499) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, when the state servant was admitted to office.

Pr1 means the sum of the extra pay established in Article 25 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service;

Pr2 means the sum of bonuses established in Article 26 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service;

K means the indexation coefficient calculated under Item 2 of these Rules.

5. If decrease in the work remuneration was established to the state servant under Article 69 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130; 2000, No. 75-2270, No. 102-3213, No. 111-3586; 2001, No. 37-1231, No. 63-2278, No. 85-2972, No. 92-3210; 2002, No. 33-1249) which was valid prior to the entry into effect of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending the Law on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 45-1708) the value specified in Item 4 of these Rules shall be multiplied by the correction index M, which is calculated under the formula

M = U1 : U2, where

M means the correction coefficient;

U1 means the work remuneration (positional salary (official pay) together with extra and additional pay) in June 2002;

U2 means the work remuneration (positional salary (official pay) together with extra and additional pay) in September 2001, or if the state official was admitted to office in the period from 1 October 2001 till 30 June 2002, the positional salary (official pay) when the state servant was admitted to office.

6. While taking account of the change in the demand of the funds for work remuneration, the indexation coefficient may be corrected in a corresponding establishment, but not more often than once in a quarter of the year.”

31. Having compared the legal regulation established in the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 53) “On the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants” of 17 January 2003 with the legal regulation established in the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002, it is clear that they establish virtually the same principle of calculation of the work remuneration of state servants, which is applied in case the established demand for funds for work remuneration of state servants exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and municipal budgets.

32. It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 were in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

Having held this, on the grounds of the same arguments, it should also be held that the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 53) “On the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants” of 17 January 2003 are also in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

33. Having held that the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 53) “On the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants” of 17 January 2003 are also in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it should also be held that Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 53) “On the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants” of 17 January 2003 are also in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

VIII

On the compliance of Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service, the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-992) “On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions” of 27 June 2002 and the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1244) “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions’” of 10 December 2002 with Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Article 120, Paragraph 1 of Article 121 and Paragraph 1 of Article 127 of the Constitution.

1. By its ruling of 5 May 2003, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Article 8 of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Article 120, Paragraph 1 of Article 121 and Article 127 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner does not indicate in its petition the wording of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service the compliance of which with the Constitution is doubtful to it.

It is clear from the arguments of the petition of the petitioner that the petitioner had doubts as to the compliance of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service which provides:

By its resolution, upon presentation by the Government, the Seimas confirms the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions. It must contain the levels of positions and categories of state servants.”

Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service is set forth this way.

3. The following provisions have been consolidated in Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service:

the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions must be confirmed, which must contain the levels of positions and categories of state servants;

the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions is confirmed by the Seimas;

the list of positions of state servants confirmed by the Seimas also includes the positions of Seimas state servants of political (personal) confidence;

the list of positions of state servants confirmed by the Seimas also includes the positions of state servants of the Office of the Seimas;

the list of positions of state servants confirmed by the Seimas also includes the positions of state servants of institutions accountable to the Seimas;

the list of positions of state servants confirmed by the Seimas also includes the positions of state servants of the institution of the President of the Republic;

the list of positions of state servants confirmed by the Seimas also includes the positions of state servants of institutions accountable to the President of the Republic;

the list of positions of state servants confirmed by the Seimas also includes the positions of state servants of courts;

the list of positions of state servants confirmed by the Seimas also includes the positions of state servants of the prosecutor’s office;

the list of positions of state servants confirmed by the Seimas also includes the positions of state servants of municipal institutions;

the list of positions of state servants, including unified positions of Seimas state servants of political (personal) confidence, of state servants of the Office of the Seimas and institutions accountable to the Seimas, of the institution of the President of the Republic and institutions accountable to the President of the Republic, of National Administration of Courts, of courts, prosecutor’s office and municipal institutions is confirmed by substatutory act—a Seimas resolution;

the list of positions of state servants, including unified positions of Seimas state servants of political (personal) confidence, of state servants of the Office of the Seimas and institutions accountable to the Seimas, of the institution of the President of the Republic and institutions accountable to the President of the Republic, of National Administration of Courts, of courts, prosecutor’s office and municipal institutions is confirmed upon presentation of the Government.

While taking account of, inter alia, Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service which provides that the Government shall confirm the List of Unified Positions of State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence of the Prime Minister, of State Servants of the Office of the Government, Ministries, Government Establishments and Establishments Under the Ministries, and that it must indicate the levels of positions and categories of state servants, it should be held that the list of unified positions of state servants indicated in Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service does not include positions of state servants of the executive, save state servants of the institution of the President of the Republic and institutions accountable to the President of the Republic.

4. It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner had doubts only whether not entire Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Article 120, Paragraph 1 of Article 121 and Article 127 of the Constitution, but only the provision established in the said paragraph that the list of positions of state servants confirmed by the Seimas includes also positions of state servants of municipal institutions, since, in the opinion of the petitioner, confirmation of any list of state servants of municipal institutions is the competence of the municipal councils, which arises from Paragraph 2 of Article 120 of the Constitution that provides that municipalities shall act freely and independently within their competence, which shall be established by the Constitution and laws, from Paragraph 1 of Article 121 of the Constitution which provides that municipalities shall draft and confirm their own budget, and Paragraph 1 of Article 127 of the Constitution which provides that the budgetary system of the Republic of Lithuania shall consist of the independent State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania as well as the independent municipal budgets.

Subsequent to the petition of the petitioner, the Constitutional Court will investigate the compliance of only this provision of Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service with Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Article 120, Paragraph 1 of Article 121 and Article 127 of the Constitution.

5. It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that, under the Constitution, local self-government is self-regulation and self-action of the communities of the administrative units of state territory, in accordance with the competence defined by the Constitution and laws, which are provided for by law; that the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 120 of the Constitution that municipalities shall act freely and independently may not be kept separate from the provision established in the same paragraph of the same article that the freedom and independence of municipalities are bound by the competence established by the Constitution and laws; the state service, as a system, comprises professional activity of persons, employed at state or municipal institutions, when adopting decisions in the course of execution of public administration and/or providing public services (or participating in drafting and executing such decisions, coordinating and/or controlling the execution thereof, etc.) and thus guaranteeing the public interest in the whole state; that the constitutional concept of the state service implies a necessity to establish such legal regulation, which would ensure systemic correlations between and interaction of all self-government institutions; that the constitutional concept of the state service includes relations of office not only in state institutions but also in municipal institutions; that a single system of the state service is an necessary pre-requisite of the effective interaction of state administration and local self-government, the two systems of public power, and non-confronting, harmonising the public interest of the entire society of the state, the civil Nation, and the public interest of territorial communities and municipalities; that the unity of the systems of the state service, comprising service at both state and municipal institutions, is an important condition of an uninterrupted and continued functioning of the system of the state service; that, under the Constitution, it is not permitted to create any such legal regulation according to which the state service in certain state (municipal) institutions (a certain link of the system of the state service) would be eliminated from the general system of the state service, that the independency of municipal budget may be construed only upon taking account of the unity of the budgetary system of Lithuania which is consolidated in the Constitution.

6. The provision consolidated in Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service that the list of positions of state servants confirmed by the Seimas includes also positions of state servants of municipal institutions is in compliance with the constitutional concept of the state service and the constitutional principle of independence of municipalities and freedom of their actions within their competence, which shall be established by the Constitution and laws, thus, also with Paragraph 2 of Article 120 of the Constitution which provides that municipalities shall act freely and independently within their competence, which shall be established by the Constitution and laws, Paragraph 1 of Article 121 of the Constitution which provides that municipalities shall draft and confirm their own budget, and Paragraph 1 of Article 127 of the Constitution which provides that the budgetary system of the Republic of Lithuania shall consist of the independent State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania as well as the independent municipal budgets.

7. Taking account of the reasoning set forth, it should be concluded that the provision of Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service that the list of positions of state servants confirmed by the Seimas includes also positions of state servants of municipal institutions is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 120, Paragraph 1 of Article 121 and Article 127 of the Constitution.

8. The investigated provision of Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service does not contain any legal regulation under which state servants would be discriminated or privileges would be granted to them either on the grounds expressis verbis specified in Paragraph 2 of Article 29 of the Constitution, or any other constitutionally unjustifiable grounds.

9. Taking account of the reasoning set forth, the conclusion should be drawn that the provision consolidated in Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service the list of positions of state servants confirmed by the Seimas includes also positions of state servants of municipal institutions is not in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution.

10. By its ruling of 5 May 2003, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-992) “On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions” of 27 June 2002 is not in conflict with Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Article 120, Paragraph 1 of Article 121 and Paragraph 1 of Article 127 of the Constitution.

11. It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner doubts as to whether the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-992) “On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions” of 27 June 2002 is not in conflict with Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Article 120, Paragraph 1 of Article 121 and Article 127 of the Constitution only in the aspect that that the list of positions of state servants confirmed by the Seimas includes also positions of state servants of municipal institutions, since, in the opinion of the petitioner, confirmation of any list of state servants of municipal institutions is the competence of the municipal councils.

12. It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision that the list of positions of state servants confirmed by the Seimas includes also positions of state servants of municipal institutions is consolidated in Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 8 of the Law on the State Service. It was also held that the said provision is in compliance with the constitutional concept of the state service and the constitutional principle of independence of municipalities and freedom of their actions within their competence established by the Constitution and laws, that this provision does not contain any legal regulation under which state servants would be discriminated or privileges would be granted to them either on the grounds expressis verbis specified in Paragraph 2 of Article 29 of the Constitution, or any other constitutionally unjustifiable grounds, and that this provision is not in conflict with Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Article 120, Paragraph 1 of Article 121 and Article 127 of the Constitution.

Having held this, the Constitutional Court will not investigate whether the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-992) “On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions” of 27 June 2002 is not in conflict with Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Article 120, Paragraph 1 of Article 121 and Article 127 of the Constitution.

13. By its ruling of 5 May 2003, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1244) “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions’” of 10 December 2002 is not in conflict with Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Article 120, Paragraph 1 of Article 121 and Paragraph 1 of Article 127 of the Constitution.

14. It is clear from the arguments of the petition of the petitioner that the petitioner had doubts whether the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1244) “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions’” of 10 December 2002 is not in conflict with Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Article 120, Paragraph 1 of Article 121 and Article 127 of the Constitution only in the aspect that by it the Seimas changed certain categories of positions of state servants (for instance, the deputy director of the municipal administration) of municipal institutions as well as maximum categories—they were lowered.

15. It needs to be noted that the petitioner did not present any legal arguments why, in his opinion, the Seimas was not permitted to change categories of positions of respective state servants of municipal institutions and to lower them.

16. Under Item 5 of Paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the ruling of the court that applies to the Constitutional Court requesting an investigation into whether a legal act is not in conflict with the Constitution must contain legal arguments presenting the opinion of the court on the conflict of that law or other legal act with the Constitution.

Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the petition must be returned to the petitioner if the petition or attachments thereto fail to comply with, inter alia, the requirements set forth in Article 67 of this law. The return of a petition shall not take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court according to the common procedure after removal of the deficiencies thereof.

17. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be held that part of the case concerning the compliance of the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1244) “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions’” of 10 December 2002 with the Constitution must be dismissed and the petition to this extent must be returned to the petitioner.

IX

On the compliance of Paragraph 1 (wording of 13 December 1994) of Article 7 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 (wording of 2 May 2000) with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29 and Article 52 of the Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

1. By its ruling of 7 May 2003, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 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, which regulate calculation and payment of state pensions of officials and servicemen according to the work remuneration of officials and servicemen valid at the month of payment of the pension for the office that they used to hold at the time of retirement, and which do not provide for a prohibition on reducing work remuneration for the month for which the state pension of officials and servicemen is calculated and paid, are not in conflict, as to their content, with the principles of a society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 52 of the Constitution.

2. On 13 December 1994, the Seimas adopted the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and of the Prosecutor’s Office.

It was established in Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of this law:

The state pension of officials and servicemen for service shall be calculated and paid on the basis of the work remuneration valid in the month of the payment of the pension for the post which the official or serviceman used to hold prior to his retirement. This remuneration shall include the positional salary, as well as the extra pay for the rank, length of service and the category when this extra pay are paid under procedure established by law.”

3. The legal regulation established in the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and of the Prosecutor’s Office was changed for more than once; the title of the said law was changed more than once, too.

For instance, the title of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and of the Prosecutor’s Office was amended after the Seimas, on 2 May 2000, adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending the Title as well as Articles 1, 3, 6, 12 and 16 to the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and of the Prosecutor’s Office, by Article 1 whereof the said title was supplemented 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 and of the Prosecutor’s Office”.

The title of this law was amended once again after the Seimas, on 13 July 2000, adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending the Title as well as Articles 1, 3, 6, 12 and 16 to the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence and of the Prosecutor’s Office, by Article 1 whereof the said title was supplemented 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”.

Alongside, it needs to be noted that the legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 (wording of 13 December 1994) of Article 7 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence and of the Prosecutor’s Office had not been amended until the petitioner applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into the compliance of this paragraph with the Constitution.

4. On 23 April 2002, the Constitutional Court passed the Ruling “On the Compliance of Paragraphs 1 And 2 of Article 7, Paragraph 6 And Item 2 of Paragraph 9 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, Defence And of the Prosecutor’s Office (Wording of 2 May 2000) with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and on the Compliance of Item 31.3 of the Regulations of the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, Defence and Prosecutor’s Office (Wording of 20 November 1998) as Approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 83) ‘On the Approval of the Regulations of the Granting and Payment of State Pensions to Officials and Servicemen of the Systems of the Interior, State Security, Defence and Prosecutor’s Office and the Establishment of the Time of Service Necessary in Order to Receive a Respective Percentage Additional Pay For the Years of Service’ of 20 January 1995 with Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, Defence and of the Prosecutor’s Office (Wording of 2 May 2000)” whereby it, inter alia, recognised that Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 7 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence and of the Prosecutor’s Office (wording of 2 May 2002) were not in conflict with the Constitution.

5. Taking account of the fact that the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 23 April 2002 recognised that Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 7 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence and of the Prosecutor’s Office (wording of 2 May 2002) were not in conflict with the Constitution, as well as of the fact that 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 of the Prosecutor’s Office (wording of 2 May 2000) was amended by the Law on Amending the Title as well as Articles 1, 3, 6, 12 and 16 to the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence and of the Prosecutor’s Office, which was adopted by the Seimas on 13 July 2000, and which was entitled as 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, as well as of the fact that the legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 (wording of 13 December 1994) of Article 7 of this law had not been amended before the petitioner applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into the compliance of this paragraph with the Constitution, it should be held that the issue of the compliance of Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 13 July 2000) of Article 7 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 (wording of 13 July 2000) with the Constitution was decided by the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 23 April 2002.

6. Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court provides that the Constitutional Court, by a decision, shall refuse to consider petitions requesting an investigation into the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution, if the compliance of the legal act with the Constitution indicated in the petition has already been investigated by the Constitutional Court and the ruling on this issue adopted by the Constitutional Court is still in force.

Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court provides that in the event that the grounds for refusal to consider a petition have been established after the commencement of the investigation of the case during the hearing of the Constitutional Court, a decision to dismiss the case shall be adopted.

7. The Constitutional Court dismisses the part of the case concerning the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 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 (wording of 13 July 2000) with the Constitution.

X

On the compliance of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (wording of 18 July 2000) with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Articles 29 and 52 of the Constitution, and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, as well as that of Section 5 of Item 9 of the said regulations also with Item 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution and Paragraph 1 (wording of 13 December 1994) of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 (wording of 13 July 2000) of Article 12 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 (wording of 13 July 2000).

1. By its ruling of 7 May 2003, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether the provisions of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, which regulate calculation and payment of state pensions of officials and servicemen according to the work remuneration of officials and servicemen valid at the month of payment of the pension for the office that they used to hold at the time of retirement, and which do not provide for a prohibition on reducing work remuneration for the month for which the state pension of officials and servicemen is calculated and paid, are not in conflict, as to their content, with the principles of a just society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as Articles 23, 29 and 52 of the Constitution, and whether the provisions of Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995, which permit only the Ministry of National Defence, when it grants state pensions of officials and servicemen, to calculate their work remuneration on the basis of the resolutions of the Government in which work remuneration of servicemen is established prior to the entry into effect of the law regulating work remuneration of servicemen, are not in conflict, by their content, with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, Article 29 and Item 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution, as well as Paragraph 1 of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 of Article 12 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.

2. At the time of the submission of the petition by the petitioner to the Constitutional Court, Paragraph 1 of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 of Article 12 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 (wording of 13 July 2000), which were indicated by the petitioner, were set forth in the wording of 13 December 1994.

3. On 22 November 2004, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 1465) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 83) ‘On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service’ of 20 January 1995” whereby it recognised Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (wording of 18 July 2000) as no longer valid.

4. Item 9 (wording of 20 January 1995) of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (wording of 18 July 2000) used to provide:

The amounts of state pensions of officials and servicemen and the procedure for calculation of these pensions are specified in Articles 7, 9, 10 and 16 of the Law.

The amounts of the pensions are calculated according to the work remuneration of officials and servicemen valid at the month of payment of the pension for the office that they used to hold at the time of retirement.

The positional remuneration (basic monthly salary), extra pay for the rank, work record and category are included into the aforesaid remuneration where this extra pay is paid under procedure established by law.

For each service year included into the service time necessary to grant the pension, 1 percent of the work remuneration is paid.

The Ministry of National Defence is permitted, when it grants state pensions of officials and soldiers under Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Law, to calculate their work remuneration on the basis of the resolutions of the Government in which work remuneration of servicemen is established prior to the entry into effect of the law regulating work remuneration of servicemen.”

5. The law indicated in Section 1 of Item 9 (wording of 20 January 1995) of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (wording of 18 July 2000) is 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.

The said section provides in which articles 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 the amounts of the pensions and the procedure of calculation of these pensions are indicated.

It needs to be noted that a mere fact that in Section 1 (wording of 20 January 1995) of Item 9 of the said regulations one makes reference to the articles 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 does not give grounds to assert that this section is in conflict with the articles of the Constitution pointed out by the petitioner.

6. The following was established in Sections 2 and 3 of Item 9 (wording of 20 January 1995) of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (wording of 18 July 2000):

The amounts of the pensions are calculated according to the work remuneration of officials and servicemen valid at the month of payment of the pension for the office that they used to hold at the time of retirement.

The positional remuneration (basic monthly salary), extra pay for the rank, work record and category are included into the aforesaid remuneration where this extra pay is paid under procedure established by law.”

The following was established in Paragraph 1 of Article 7 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 (wording of 13 July 2000):

The pension of officials and servicemen is calculated and paid according to the work remuneration of officials and servicemen valid at the month of payment of the pension for the office that they used to hold at the time of retirement. The positional salary, extra pay for the rank, work record and category are included into the aforesaid remuneration where this extra pay is paid under procedure established by law.”

Having compared the legal regulation established in Sections 2 and 3 of Item 9 (wording of 20 January 1995) of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (wording of 18 July 2000) with the legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 7 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 (wording of 13 July 2000), it is clear that they are virtually identical.

7. The following was established in Section 4 (wording of 20 January 1995) of Item 9 (wording of 20 January 1995) of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (wording of 18 July 2000):

For each service year included into the service time necessary to grant the pension, 1 percent of the work remuneration is paid.”

The following was established in Paragraph 1 of Article 7 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 (wording of 13 July 2000):

For each service year included into the service time necessary to grant the pension, 1% of the work remuneration is paid.”

Having compared the legal regulation established in Section 4 of Item 9 (wording of 20 January 1995) of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (wording of 18 July 2000) with the legal regulation established in Paragraph 2 of Article 7 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 (wording of 13 July 2000), it is clear that they were virtually identical.

8. It has been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional Court that the issue of the compliance of Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 13 July 2000) of Article 7 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 (wording of 13 July 2000) with the Constitution was decided by the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 23 April 2002—both of these paragraphs are not in conflict with the Constitution.

9. Having held this, it should also be held that Sections 2, 3, and 4 of Item 9 (wording of 20 January 1995) of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (wording of 18 July 2000) were not in conflict with the Constitution, thus, also with Articles 23, 29, and 52 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

10. The following was established in Section 5 (wording of 20 January 1995) of Item 9 (wording of 20 January 1995) of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (wording of 18 July 2000):

The Ministry of National Defence is permitted, when it grants state pensions of officials and soldiers under Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the law, to calculate their work remuneration on the basis of the resolutions of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania in which work remuneration of servicemen is established prior to the entry into effect of the law regulating work remuneration of servicemen.”

11. The petitioner had doubts whether Section 5 (a constituent part of Item 9) of Item 9 (wording of 20 January 1995) of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (wording of 18 July 2000) is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Articles 29 and 52 and Item 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution, the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, as well as with Paragraph 1 (wording of 13 December 1994) of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 (wording of 13 July 2000) of Article 12 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 (wording of 13 July 2000).

12. It is clear from the content of the impugned Section 5 that it specifies which legal acts the Ministry of National Defence is permitted to invoke when it calculates the work remuneration of officials and servicemen in the course of granting state pensions to them.

Thus, Section 5 (wording of 20 January 1995) impugned by the petitioner regulates relations of granting state pensions of officials and servicemen, but not those of work remuneration, and in it one makes reference to corresponding legal acts.

In addition, it should be noted that there are no preconditions for asserting that the said prohibition on reducing the work remuneration of officials and servicemen had to be established precisely in Section 5 (which is impugned by the petitioner) of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (wording of 18 July 2000).

13. If the laws (parts thereof) do not establish certain legal regulation, the Constitution Court enjoys the constitutional powers to investigate the compliance of these laws (parts thereof) with the Constitution in the cases when due to the fact that the said legal regulation has not been established in particularly those laws (parts thereof) the principles and/or norms of the Constitution might be violated. In the cases when the petitioner disputes the fact that the law or another impugned legal act (part thereof) indicated by the petitioner has not established certain legal regulation, but the said legal regulation under the Constitution (and if a substatutory legal act (part thereof) of the Seimas, the Government and the President of the Republic is impugned, then also under the laws) need not be established in that particular impugned legal act (part thereof), the Constitutional Court holds that in the case on the request of the petitioner the matter of investigation is absent (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 25 January 2001, and its decisions of 6 May 2003, 13 May 2003, and 16 April 2004).

Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be held that in the case on the request of the petitioner the matter of investigation is absent. Such a request is not within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.

14. Under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court shall refuse, by its decision, to consider petitions requesting an investigation into the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution, if the consideration of the petition does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.

It is consolidated in Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court that in the event that the grounds for refusal to consider a petition have been established after the commencement of the investigation of the case during the hearing of the Constitutional Court, a decision to dismiss the case shall be adopted.

15. The Constitutional Court dismisses the part of the case concerning the compliance of Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 83) “On the Approval of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (wording of 18 July 2000) with the Constitution, as well as with Paragraph 1 (wording of 13 December 1994) of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 (wording of 13 July 2000) of Article 12 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 (wording of 13 July 2000).

Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 53, 54, 55, 56 67, 69, and 70 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. The provision consolidated in Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 8 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service that the list of state servants confirmed by the Seimas also includes positions of state servants of municipal institutions is not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

2. The provision “The state servant shall be prohibited from: <…> (4) working as a hired employee, advisor, expert or consultant in private legal persons, in state or municipal enterprises, in public establishments, as well as receiving work remuneration other than established by this Law, save the work remuneration in all level electoral and referendum commissions and for work under contracts with electoral and referendum commissions, for scientific and educational work in schools of higher education or establishments of state servants’ qualification raising, for informal adult education, for preparation of draft legal acts (unless this function is specified in the description of the position of the state servant), when he is assigned, by means of a Seimas resolution or a decision of the Board of the Seimas, an ordinance of the Speaker of the Seimas, a decree of the President of the Republic, a government resolution or an ordinance of the Prime Minister, with the preparation of draft legal acts, and save the royalties for production which is subject to intellectual property rights <…>” of Article 17 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

3. The provision “The state servant shall be prohibited from: <…> (4) working as a hired employee, advisor, expert or consultant in private legal persons, in state or municipal enterprises, in public establishments, as well as receiving work remuneration other than established by this Law, save the work remuneration in all level electoral and referendum commissions and for work under contracts with electoral and referendum commissions, for scientific and educational work in schools of higher education or establishments of state servants’ qualification raising, for informal adult education, for preparation of draft legal acts (unless this function is specified in the description of the position of the state servant), when he is assigned, by means of a Seimas resolution or a decision of the Board of the Seimas, an ordinance of the Speaker of the Seimas, a decree of the President of the Republic, a government resolution or an ordinance of the Prime Minister, with the preparation of draft legal acts, and save the royalties for production which is subject to intellectual property rights <…>” of Article 17 (wording of 13 July 2004) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

4. Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service is not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

5. The provision “An official penalty—release from office—may be imposed for: (1) engaging in activities incompatible with the state service <…>” of Paragraph 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 29 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service was not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

6. The provision “The state servant of political (personal) confidence who is elected a member of the municipal council and who has become a career state servant or the head of a civil service establishment of the administration of the same municipality under this paragraph must <…> apply to the Central Electoral Commission with an application concerning his resignation from the position of a member of the municipal council. The person who has not filed the application under the procedure established in Article 86 of the Law on Elections to Municipal Councils within this period shall lose the status of a state servant under Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service” of Paragraph 12 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 62 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service was not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

7. The provision “The state servants of political (personal) confidence who became career state servants or heads of civil service establishments of the municipal administration in the manner specified in this Paragraph and who were elected members of the council of the same municipality must decide on their subsequent service. The persons who have chosen to continue in the state service must apply to the Central Electoral Commission with an application concerning their resignation from members of the municipal council. The persons who have not filed the application under the procedure established in Paragraph 1 of Article 86 of the Law on Elections to Municipal Councils shall lose the status of a state servant under Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service” of Paragraph 12 (wording of 21 November 2000) of Article 62 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service was not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

8. The provision “if the demand of funds calculated by the state or municipal institution or establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants for work remuneration for state servants exceeds the appropriations for work remuneration confirmed in the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and municipal budgets for a respective year, the work remuneration of state servants shall be calculated according to the rules of the calculation of the work remuneration of state servants, which are confirmed by the Government, however, the positional salary of a state servant cannot be smaller than that received by him until 30 June 2002” of Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

9. Paragraph 6 (wording of 4 July 2002) of Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

10. The provision “The municipal administrator shall: <…> (7) <…> release, under procedure established in the Law on the State Service, civil servants and state employees as well as heads of establishments rendering public services from office <…>” of Paragraph 7 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 29 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Local Self-government was not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

11. Section 1 of Item 9 (wording of 20 January 1995) of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed 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 the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (wording of 18 July 2000) is not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

12. Sections 2, 3, and 4 of Item 9 (wording of 20 January 1995) of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed 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 the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (wording of 18 July 2000) were not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

13. The Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002 as confirmed by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 686) “On the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 were in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

14. Items 1 and 2 of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 53 “On the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants” of 17 January 2003 and the Rules of the Calculation of the Work Remuneration of State Servants confirmed by the same resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania are in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as the constitutional principle of the stat under the rule of law.

15. To dismiss the part of the case concerning the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 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 (wording of 13 July 2000) with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

16. To dismiss the part of the case concerning the compliance of Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1244 “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Confirmation of the List of Unified Positions of Seimas State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence, of State Servants of the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, Those of the Institution of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, Those of National Administration of Courts, of Courts, Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions’” of 10 December 2002 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and to this extent to return the petition to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner.

17. To dismiss the part of the case concerning the compliance of Section 5 of Item 9 of the Regulations for the Granting and Payment of the 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 confirmed 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 the 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 the Additional Pay of Respective Percentage for the Years of Service” of 20 January 1995 (wording of 18 July 2000) with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as with Paragraph 1 (wording of 13 December 1994) of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 (wording of 13 July 2000) of Article 12 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 (wording of 13 July 2000).

This ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania 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

Jonas Prapiestis

Vytautas Sinkevičius

Stasys Stačiokas