Lt

On the remuneration of officials of the system of internal service

Case No. 14/07-17/08-25/08-39/08

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

RULING

ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 2 (WORDINGS OF 23 APRIL 2002 AND 7 JUNE 2007) OF ARTICLE 23 THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON THE STATE SERVICE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

11 December 2009
Vilnius

 

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius, Toma Birmontienė, Pranas Kuconis, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Ramutė Ruškytė, Egidijus Šileikis, Algirdas Taminskas, and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis

The court reporters—Daiva Pitrėnaitė and Sigutė Brusovienė

Vytautas Kurpuvesas, Chairperson of the Seimas Committee on State Administration and Local Authorities, acting as the representative of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the 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, in its public hearing, on 3 April 2009, considered constitutional justice case No. 14/07-17/08-25/08-39/08 subsequent to:

1) the petition (No. 1B-15/2007) of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 (wordings of 23 April 2002 and 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 and 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;

2) the petition (No. 1B-18/2008) of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 (wordings of 23 April 2002 and 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service was not (is not) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

3) the petition (No. 1B-26/2008) of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service was not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

4) the petition (No. 1B-44/2008) of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 (wordings of 23 April 2002 and 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service was not (is not) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

By the Constitutional Court’s Decision “On Joining Petitions into One Case” of 22 September 2009, petition No. 1B-15/2007 of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court and petitions Nos. 1B-18/2008, 1B-26/2008 and 1B-44/2008 were joined into one case and it was given reference No. 14/07-17/08-25/08-39/08.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

1. The Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling, the court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition (No. 1B-15/2007) requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling, the court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition (No. 1B-18/2008) requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 (wordings of 23 April 2002 and 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service was not (is not) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

3. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling, the court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition (No. 1B-26/2008) requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service was not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

4. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling, the court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition (No. 1B-44/2008) requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 (wordings of 23 April 2002 and 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service was not (is not) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

II

1. The petition (No. 1B-15/2007) of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is substantiated by these arguments.

It is entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being has the right to freely choose a job, inter alia, that he has the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, the right to receive fair pay for work and social security in the event of unemployment. The right of a citizen to receive fair pay for work is one of the most important prerequisites for the implementation of the right to ownership, which is consolidated in Article 23 of the Constitution, since, under the Constitution, the right appears in regard to the person who has completed a commissioned task, to demand that the whole remuneration for work (pay) which is due according to the legal acts be paid to him. This right of the person is guaranteed, protected and defended as the right of ownership (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 December 2004).

Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service creates the preconditions for violating the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution whereby each human being has the right to receive fair pay for work. When account is taken of the relation of the right of every citizen to receive fair pay for work with the right of ownership, such a legal situation would mean that legal preconditions are also created for violating the constitutional right of ownership, i.e. Article 23 of the Constitution.

2. The petitions (Nos. 1B-18/2008 and 1B-44/2008) of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 (wordings of 23 April 2002 and 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service was not (is not) in conflict with, and the petition (No. 1B-26/2008) requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service was not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, are substantiated by the following arguments.

The provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution also means 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. 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 (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 December 2004). Meanwhile, the legal regulation entrenched in Paragraph 2 (wordings of 23 April 2002 and 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service creates preconditions not to pay, or pay not the entire amount to 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, since the amount of additional pay and extra pay may not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary (the amendment to Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, which was set forth in its wording of 7 June 2007, did not create any preconditions for avoiding this), thus, preconditions are created for a violation of the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution. Taking account of the fact that the constitutional right to receive fair pay for work is one of the most important prerequisites for the implementation of the constitutional right of ownership, it also needs to be held that such a legal situation would mean that legal prerequisites are also created for violation of the constitutional right of ownership, i.e. also Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, as well as the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, which, among other requirements, implies that human rights and freedoms, thus, also the constitutional human right to receive fair pay for work, must be secured.

III

1. By the 25 April 2007 ordinance (No. 144) of the Speaker of the Seimas and the 25 September 2008 ordinance (No. 191) of the Speaker of the Seimas, Seimas member Violeta Boreikienė was appointed to represent the Seimas, the party concerned.

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court’s hearing, written explanations were received from Seimas member Violeta Boreikienė, in which it is maintained that Paragraph 2 (wordings of 23 April 2002 and 7 June 2007) of the Law on the State Service was not (is not) in conflict with the Constitution. The position of the representative of the party concerned is substantiated by these arguments.

1.1. After the entry into force of the Law on the State Service, which was adopted on 23 April 2002, the application of the principle of dual limitation upon additional pay and extra pay paid to state servants began, the essence of which is the establishment of a two-stage system of limitation on additional pay and extra pay paid to state servants (the first stage—limitations on additional pay and extra pay; the second stage—limitations on the total size of additional pay and extra pay).

The application of the principle of dual limitation upon additional pay and extra pay began as from 1 July 2002 as a measure, which was supposed to make a positive impact while seeking to achieve the set objectives, inter alia: to avoid possible abuse in paying extra pay of unlimited size to state servants; not to allow the appearance of unreasonably big differences between the size of the average monthly remuneration for work of state servants and the annual speed of the increase of the said remuneration on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the size of the average monthly remuneration for work of persons working in the private sector and the annual speed of the increase of the said remuneration; not to allow the appearance of unreasonably big differences in remuneration for work among state servants of categories 1–9 and state servants of categories 10–20; to discipline the persons (heads of establishments) who admit state servants to office and orient them so that they would organise the work of their subordinates in a manner that state servants work within routine procedure (receiving normal workload) under established time and only in case of need would they have to work during days off and holidays, at night, to perform additional assignments, and to work more intensively during a working day; to use in a rational manner the allocations from state and municipal budgets.

1.2. The application of the principle of dual limitation upon additional pay and extra pay in the state service was began in establishing such limitation sizes the exceeding of which was provided only for the future in 6 or 7 years’ time. In the course of discussions at the Seimas about the limitation sizes one also assessed the experience of other countries in this area (the information held at that time suggested that, as a rule, the variable part (various extra pay) of the remuneration for work in the state service does not exceed the stable part of the remuneration for work (positional salary and additional pay for the time of service for the state, qualification, grade (official rank), etc.). If this proportion is violated, the employee partially loses the motivation to work under normal regime during his working time, to increase qualification, to seek career, he begins to orient himself to extra pay for additional assignments, etc.

1.3. The provisions of Articles 23, 25, and 26 of the Law on the State Service, which establish the limitations upon the additional pay and extra pay paid to state servants, must be construed and implemented not in isolation and separately from one another, but in a systemic (complex) manner and in relation with one another. When one bears in mind the two-stage limitations upon the payment of additional pay and extra pay to state servants, which are established in the Law on the State Service, in the course of the implementation of this law there should not have occurred (should not occur) any such legal situation where a state servant is commissioned by the head of the establishment or by his immediate superior with performance of work, where he is assigned to work during days off and holidays as well as at night, to perform duties beyond the scope of the normal work load or additional assignments which exceed the established work time, by knowing in advance that this servant would not be paid, that he would not be paid in due time, or that he would be paid less than established by means of laws and legal acts passed on the grounds of these laws.

According to V. Boreikienė, heads of statutory establishments and other servants responsible for payment for work, do not acquire the right not to implement laws and other legal acts (norms thereof) properly due to their negative approach to the limitations upon paid additional pay and extra pay, especially as regards the top limit (70 percent of the size of the positional salary), and are not exempted from responsibility as long as the corresponding law and/or legal act (norms thereof) is not changed. While implementing the provisions of the Law on the State Service regarding regulation of remuneration for work in a systemic (complex) and consistent manner, the heads of establishments, after they established additional pay of certain sizes (the total amount of which was close to their maximum limitation), were not allowed to create any such conditions, where a possibility would appear not to pay a state servant for the task assigned to him and carried out by him, which was performed during days off and holidays as well as at night, or for work performed overtime and on shifts. The heads of establishments and other executives whose discretion was limited (is limited) by the principle of dual limitation upon additional pay and extra pay, the sizes of the two-stage limitations, and the top limit of the amount of paid additional pay and extra pay (70 percent of the size of the positional salary), were not allowed (did not have the right) to assign additional tasks to their subordinates, to obligate them to work more intensively during the working time or to work during days off and holidays as well as at night, when they knew in advance that they would not have an opportunity to pay the total amount of extra pay (that there would appear arrears of remuneration for work). From this it is possible to draw the conclusion that the arrears of remuneration for work mostly appeared (appear) due to the fact that the heads of establishments and immediate superiors implemented (implement) the provisions of the Law on the State Service regarding the limitation of the paid additional pay and extra pay in an unprincipled and non-systemic (non-complex) manner. In addition, one should not reject the fact that the heads of statutory establishments and immediate superiors, while knowing how the provisions of the Law on the State Service regarding the limitation on the paid additional pay and extra pay must be implemented, made use (make use) of the possibility to interpret (construe) these provisions for their own benefit.

1.4. It is noted in the explanations of V. Boreikienė that from 2002 till 2008 the approach of the Seimas and the Government towards the principle of dual limitation upon additional pay and extra pay paid to state servants underwent changes. The Seimas discussed draft (No. 3132) Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 4, 12, 161, 23, 26, 37 and 41 of the Law on the State Service and Supplementing the Law with Articles 231 and 431, which was prepared by the Government and submitted to the Seimas on 30 May 2008. The Seimas Committee on State Administration and Local Authorities, which is the main committee for consideration of this draft law, upon assessing the remarks and suggestions submitted by other Seimas committees, institutions accountable to the Government, trade unions representing interests of state servants, and other interested persons, prepared an improved draft law XP-3132 (2), which was discussed at the committee sitting and was submitted to the Seimas for consideration. In this improved draft law one suggests that the overall limitation on additional pay and extra pay provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service be abandoned, that a new element of the remuneration for work of a state servant—“payment for work performed during days off and holidays as well as at night, and for work performed overtime and on shifts”—be entrenched (by providing for sizes of these payments in a separate article), that differentiated limitations be established to state servants when they are paid extra pay etc.

2. On 24 March 2009, Ordinance of the Speaker of the Seimas No. PP-28 of 19 March 2009 was received at the Constitutional Court, whereby V. Kurpuvesas, Chairperson of the Seimas Committee on State Administration and Local Authorities, was authorised to represent the Seimas in the constitutional justice case at issue, and, in addition, the same ordinance recognised the 25 April 2007 ordinance (No. 144) of the Speaker of the Seimas and the 25 September 2008 ordinance (No. 191) of the Speaker of the Seimas (regarding the authorisation of Seimas member V. Boreikienė to represent the Seimas at the Constitutional Court) as no longer valid.

In his written explanations, V. Kurpuvesas, Chairperson of the Seimas Committee on State Administration and Local Authorities, the representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, virtually assents to the explanations of V. Boreikienė, the former representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, and, alongside, he notes that, in 2008, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 4, 10, 16, 161, 17, 23, 26, 37, 41, 42 of the Law on the State Service, on Supplementing the Law with Articles 231 and 431 and on Amending Chapter II of Annex 3 Thereof.

IV

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court’s hearing, written explanations were received from Rimantas Kairelis, State Secretary of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania, from Paulius Koverovas, State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, and from Osvaldas Šarmavičius, Director of the Civil Service Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.

V

At the Constitutional Court’s hearing, V. Kurpuvesas, Chairperson of the Seimas Committee on State Administration and Local Authorities, the representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in his written explanations and answered the questions given by the justices of the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. The Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-15/2007).

It is clear from the arguments of the petition of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, that the Constitutional Court is requested to investigate the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, inter alia, with not entire Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, but only with the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof.

2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 (wordings of 23 April 2002 and 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service was not (is not) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-18/23).

3. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 (wording 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service was not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-26/23).

4. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 (wordings of 23 April 2002 and 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service was not (is not) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-44/2008).

5. The impugned Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service prescribed: “The amount of additional pay and extra pay may not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary”, whereas Paragraph 2 (wording of 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service prescribed: “The amount of additional pay and extra pay may not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary. The additional pay established in Items 1 and 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of this Law shall not be included in this amount.”

6. It is clear from the arguments of the petitions of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court and the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioners, and from the materials of the cases that these courts investigated the administrative cases regarding the court award of part of remuneration for work of a certain category of state servants, i.e. officials of the interior service system, for work performed during days off and holidays as well as at night and for performing additional assignments which exceeded the established work time.

7. Although the petitioners request an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 (wordings of 23 April 2002 and 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service was not (is not) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it is clear from the arguments of the petitions and the material of the administrative cases that they have doubts as regards the compliance of the said legal regulation with the Constitution in the aspect that it was not allowed that the officials of the interior service system be paid fairly for the work performed during days off and holidays as well as at night and for performing additional assignments which exceeded the established work time.

8. In this context in needs to be noted that the legal regulation (established in the impugned Paragraph 2 (wordings of 23 April 2002 and 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service) of remuneration for work of other state servants, save officials of the interior service system, inter alia, that of remuneration for work paid for the work performed during days off and holidays as well as at night and for performing additional assignments which exceeded the established work time, is not a matter of investigation in the constitutional justice case at issue.

II

1. On 8 July 1999, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service, which came into force on 30 July 1999.

The Law on the State Service (wording of 8 July 1999) laid down the basic principles of the state service, the status of a state servant and the legal basis for the management of the state service (Article 1).

Article 31 of this law prescribed that the remuneration for work of a state servant shall be comprised of the positional salary (Item 1), additional pay for the length of service (Item 2), and extra pay (Item 3).

The same law established limitations upon the size of the additional pay for the length of service and extra pay paid to a state servant: the size (amount) of the additional pay for the length of service could not exceed 30 percent of the positional salary (Paragraph 3 of Article 33), whereas the size (amount) of extra pay could not exceed 50 percent of the positional salary (Paragraph 2 of Article 34).

2. It needs to be noted that the Law on the State Service (wording of 8 July 1999) has been amended and/or supplemented more than once, however, the limitation upon the constituent elements of the remuneration for work of a state servant—the size (amount) of additional pay and the size (amount) of extra pay—persisted, whereas no limitation upon the total size (amount) of the additional pay and extra pay was established in this law. Such legal regulation was in force till 1 July 2002.

3. On 29 August 2000, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on the State Service, which came into force on 7 September 2000. Article 27 of the said law amended and supplemented Article 33 (wording of 8 July 1999) of the Law on the State Service and set it forth in its new wording. Article 33 (wording of 29 August 2000) of the Law on the State Service established additional pay paid to statutory state servants for the grade (official rank), class, rank, qualification category (Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 33, Paragraph 2 of Article 33). Under the legal regulation established in this article, it was also prescribed that the size (amount) of the additional pay for the grade (official rank), class, rank, qualification category could not exceed 30 percent of the size of the positional salary (save the additional pay for diplomatic rank) (Paragraph 5 of Article 33).

4. On 23 April 2002, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending the Law on the State Service by Article 1 whereof it amended the Law on the State Service (wording of 8 July 1999 with subsequent amendments and supplements). On the same day the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Implementing the Law on Amending the Law on the State Service was adopted, under Paragraph 1 of Article 1 whereof the said Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002) came into force (with certain exceptions) on 1 July 2002.

The Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002) laid down the basic principles of the state service, the status of a state servant, responsibility, remuneration, social and other guarantees as well as the legal basis for the management of the state service (Article 1).

5. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it needs to be noted that Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service was entrenched in Chapter VI “Remuneration for Work” of the Law on the State Service.

6. Article 23 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service prescribed:

Article 23. Remuneration for Work

1. Remuneration for work of a state servant shall comprise:

1) positional salary;

2) additional pay;

3) extra pay.

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

Thus, Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service enumerated the following constituent parts of remuneration for work of state servants: positional salary, additional pay, and extra pay. In this context it needs to be mentioned that, under Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, the positional salary shall be determined for the category of the position and shall be the same for all positions in the same category. Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service established the limitation upon the total size (amount) of additional pay and extra pay paid to state servants—the amount of the additional pay and extra pay could not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary.

7. The types of additional pay and extra pay paid to state servants and the conditions of payment thereof were established in Articles 25 and 26 of the Law on the State Service.

8. Article 25 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service prescribed:

Article 25. Additional Pay

1. State servants shall be paid the following additional pay:

1) for the length of service to the State of Lithuania (hereinafter referred to as the ‘length of service’);

2) for the qualification class or qualification category;

3) for the grade (official rank);

4) for the diplomatic rank.

2. Additional pay for the length of service shall be 3 percent of the positional salary for every three years of service for the State of Lithuania. The amount of this additional pay may not exceed 30 percent of the positional salary.

3. The additional pay for the third qualification class shall be 15 percent, for the second qualification class—30 percent, and for the first qualification class—50 percent of the positional salary.

4. The additional pay specified in Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of this Article shall be awarded until the next assessment of the state servant. The state servant who is assessed under procedure established in Paragraph 13 of Article 22 of this Law shall be awarded additional pay until the next assessment of the state servant.

5. The additional pay specified in Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be paid to state servants of political (personal) confidence.

6. Additional pay for the grade (official rank) or qualification category may only be paid to statutory state servants in accordance with the procedure laid down in the statutes. Statutory state servants shall not be paid the additional pay for the qualification class, except state servants whose service is regulated by the Law on the Diplomatic Service.

7. Additional pay referred to in Items 2, 3 and 4 of Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not exceed 55 percent of the positional salary.”

Thus, under the legal regulation established in Article 25 (wording of 23 April 2002) of this law, additional pay could be paid to state servants for the length of service, the qualification class or category, the grade (official rank) and the diplomatic rank.

This article provided for limitations upon the size of the additional pay paid to state servants. The total size (amount) of the additional pay paid to state servants for the qualification class or category, the grade (official rank), and the diplomatic rank could not exceed 55 percent of the positional salary (Paragraph 7 of Article 25), whereas the total size (amount) of the additional pay paid to state servants for the length of service could not exceed 30 percent of the positional salary (Paragraph 2 of Article 25). It needs to be noted that additional pay for the official rank and the qualification category could be paid only to statutory state servants (Paragraph 6 of Article 25).

9. Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service prescribed:

Article 26. Extra Pay

1. State servants shall be paid the following extra pay:

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

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

3) for activities exceeding the scope of the normal work load or for performing additional assignments which exceed the established work time. Additional assignments for a state servant shall be formulated in writing.

2. The extra pay specified in Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of this Article may not be paid for a period exceeding one year after it was granted, except for state servants of political (personal) confidence. If a state servant has to work in the conditions referred to in Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of this Article for more than one year, such conditions shall be considered to have become permanent. In this case, the issue of amending the job description shall have to be settled.

3. The extra pay specified in Items 1, 2 and 3 of Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not exceed 60 percent of the positional salary.”

Thus, according to the legal regulation established in Article 26 (wording of 23 April 2002), extra pay could be paid to state servants for work during days off, on holidays and at night, for work in harmful, highly harmful and hazardous conditions, and for activities exceeding the scope of the normal work load or for performing additional assignments which exceed the established work time.

Paragraph 3 of Article 26 of the said law established the limitation upon the total size (amount) of extra pay paid to state servants—the extra pay could not exceed 60 percent of the positional salary.

10. Under the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002) state servants were grouped into career state servants (Paragraph 5 of Article 2 defined them as state servants recruited for an indefinite term to office and having an opportunity to realise their right to career development in the civil service in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Law on the State Service), statutory state servants (Paragraph 6 of Article 2 defined them as state servants whose service is regulated by statute approved by means of a law or by the Law on the Diplomatic Service providing for special conditions of recruitment to the state service, performance of duties, responsibility as well as other conditions related to specific features of the service and/or having public administrative powers in respect of persons who are not subordinate to them), state servants of political (personal) confidence (Paragraph 6 of Article 2 defined them as state servants recruited for a term of office of the appointing state politician or the appointing collegiate state institution or for a term specified in other laws) and heads of establishments (Paragraph 7 of Article 2 defined them as state servants recruited on the basis of competition or political (personal) confidence to head a state or municipal institution or establishment).

11. Under Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 4 of the Law on the State Service, the Law on the State Service shall apply to state servants without reservation, except for statutory state servants. Under Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 4 of the Law on the State Service, the provisions of the Law on the State Service shall apply to statutory state servants in so far as their status is not regulated by the statutes or the Law on the Diplomatic Service, except for the procedure of remuneration laid down in the Law on the State Service. In this context it needs to be noted that the procedure for remuneration for work of state servants, which is also applied to statutory state servants, was established in Chapter VI “Remuneration for Work” of the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002).

Article 4 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service has been amended and supplemented more than once, however, the content of Paragraph 2 thereof in the aspect that the procedure for remuneration for work established in the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002) is also applied to statutory state servants without reservations has remained unchanged.

12. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, summing up the legal regulation established in the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002) it needs to be held that it entrenched not only the limitations upon the size of the additional pay paid to state servants (the total size (amount) of the additional pay for the length of service could not exceed 30 percent of the positional salary (Paragraph 2 of Article 25), the total size (amount) of the additional pay for the qualification class or qualification category, for the grade (official rank), for the diplomatic rank could not exceed 55 percent of the positional salary (Paragraph 7 of Article 25)), not only the limitation upon the size of the extra pay paid to state servants (the total size (amount) of the extra pay paid to state servants for work during days off, on holidays and at night, for work in harmful, highly harmful and hazardous conditions, and for activities exceeding the scope of the normal work load or for performing additional assignments which exceed the established work time could not exceed 60 percent of the positional salary (Paragraph 3 of Article 26)), but also the limitation upon the total size (amount) of additional pay and extra pay—the amount of the additional pay and extra pay could not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary (Paragraph 2 of Article 23).

13. On 7 June 2007, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 3, 4, 8, 9, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 38, 41, 43, 44, 49, 50 and the Annex of the Law on the State Service and Supplementing the Law with Articles 221, 481, 501, which came into force (with certain exceptions) on 1 October 2007.

13.1. Article 11 of the said law supplemented Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service. Paragraph 2 (wording of 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service was set it forth as follows:

The amount of additional pay and extra pay may not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary. The additional pay established in Items 1 and 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of this Law shall not be included in this amount.”

13.2. Article 12 of the aforementioned law supplemented Paragraph 1 of Article 25 (wording of 13 July 2004) of the Law on the State Service with Item 5. Paragraph 1 of Article 25 (7 June 2007) of the Law on the State Service, inter alia, prescribed: “The following additional pay shall be paid to state servants: <…> 5) one-off additional pay of the size of the positional salary.”

13.3. Thus, under the legal regulation established in Paragraph 2 of Article 23 (wording of 7 June 2007) of the Law on the State Service, the additional pay for the length of service was no longer included into the amount of the additional pay and extra pay paid to state servants, which could not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary (Item 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service) and the one-off additional pay of the size of the positional salary was no longer included into that amount, either (Item 5 (wording of 7 June 2007) of Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service), however, the provision that the total size (amount) of other additional pay and extra pay may not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary remained intact.

14. As mentioned before, it is clear from the arguments of the petitions of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court and the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioners, and from the materials of the cases, which were submitted to the Constitutional Court, that the said administrative courts considered complaints of officials of the internal service system regarding the court award of part of remuneration for work performed during days off and holidays as well as at night and for performing additional assignments which exceeded the established work time.

15. On 29 April 2003, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Statute of the Internal Service which came into force on 1 May 2003. By Article 1 of this law the Statute of the Internal Service (hereinafter also referred to as the Statute) was approved.

The Statute (wording of 29 April 2003) laid down the principles of the internal service, the status of the officers of the internal service system, recruitment to and release from the service, enrolment and training at establishments of professional training in the field of the interior, responsibility of the officers, incentives, social and other guarantees, peculiarities of activities of the trade unions in statutory institutions of the interior, as well as peculiarities of recruitment of other state servants to the service in statutory institutions of the interior (Article 1).

16. Section 7 “Remuneration for Work and Other Payments” of the Statute of the Internal Service established, inter alia, the constituent parts of the remuneration for work of officials of the internal service, the limitation upon the size (amount) of the additional pay and the limitation upon the size (amount) of the extra pay paid to these officials.

The Statute (wording of 29 April 2003) established (establishes) types of the additional pay paid to officials of the system of the internal service. The additional pay for the ranks held (Article 35), the qualification categories (Article 36) and the length of service (Article 37) could be paid to officials of the system of the internal service. The total size (amount) of the additional pay for a qualification category and the rank could not exceed 55 percent of the positional salary (Paragraph 6 of Article 36).

The Statute (wording of 29 April 2003) established the types of extra pay paid to officials of the system of the internal service. It was prescribed that extra pay shall be paid to officials of the system of the internal service for work during days off, on holidays and at night (Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 38), for work in harmful, highly harmful and hazardous conditions (Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 38), and for activities exceeding the scope of the normal work load or for performing additional assignments which exceed the established work time (Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 38). The total size (amount) of the additional pay paid to officials of the system of the internal service could not exceed 60 percent of the positional salary (Paragraph 5 of Article 38).

It needs to be noted that the specified articles (parts thereof) of the Statute repeat the provisions of the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002), which regulate the types of the additional pay and extra pay paid to state servants, and which regulate the limitation upon the size (amount) of the additional pay and the size (amount) of the extra pay paid to them.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it also needs to be noted that the Statute did not establish any limitation upon the total size (amount) of the additional pay and extra pay paid to officials of the system of the internal service. It has been mentioned that the procedure for remuneration for work of officials of the system of the internal service was established in Chapter VI “Remuneration for Work” of the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002). Thus, inter alia, Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the said chapter had to be applied with regard to officials of the system of the internal service without reservations, i.e., the total size (amount) of the additional pay and extra pay paid to these officials and other state servants could not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary.

17. Articles 29 and 30 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Statute established the limitations upon the working time of officials of the system of the internal service, inter alia, upon the overtime work, the work performed by the officials during days off and on holidays, and also they established the cases when overtime work is obligatory.

Article 29 of the Statute, inter alia, prescribed:

Article 29. Officer’s Working Hours

1. Standard working hours of officers, except the officers indicated in Paragraphs 3–5 of this Article may not exceed 40 hours per week (the period of 7 days). If there are the grounds indicated in Article 30 of this Statute, the head of an establishment of the interior may by his own decision instruct to work for a longer period than the standard working time per week.

2. An officer may not be instructed to work more than 8 hours of overtime per day. The duration of the shift, including overtime, may not exceed 24 hours. The duration of the shift shall comprise the time allotted to instruct and arm officers, and to account for the results of service. Overtime of one officer may not exceed 250 hours.

3. Officers performing certain duties and working in shifts in the establishments of the interior which carry out uninterrupted functions may, by the decision of the head of the central institution of the interior, be assigned to the shift lasting longer than 24 hours, which exceeds the standard working time of 40 hours per week (the period of 7 days) as fixed in Paragraph 1 of this Article, but not exceeding the standard working time of 48 hours per week (the period of 7 days). The work of such officers, which does not exceed the standard working time of 48 hours each week (the period of 7 days) shall not be considered as overtime. The list of the positions of the officers referred to in this paragraph, as well as the peculiarities of the accounting of working and rest time of the said officers shall be set out by the Government.

4. It shall be allowed to instruct the officers referred to in Paragraph 3 of this Article to work overtime only in the cases laid down in Article 30 of this Statute. In such cases the duration of the shift together with overtime may not exceed 26 hours, whereas the overtime of one officer in a year may not exceed 164 hours.”

Article 30 of the Statute prescribed:

Article 30. Cases when Overtime Work is Obligatory

1. An officer must obey the order or instruction of the superior, who has the right to appoint to the position, to work overtime when it is necessary:

1) to rescue people’s lives or health;

2) to prevent natural disasters, fires, accidents or calamities, and to eliminate their consequences;

3) to prevent mass riots or to stop them;

4) to ensure public order during mass events;

5) to fulfil an official task the fulfilment of which, because of its peculiarities, may not be suspended or terminated;

6) to reinforce the guard of the state border;

7) to prepare for the armed national defence;

8) to strengthen the protection of strategic objects;

9) to ensure the security of official foreign guests;

10) in other cases provided for by law.

2. In the cases referred to in Paragraph 1 of this Article, the head of an establishment of the interior may instruct officers to work during days off and on public holidays.”

18. When the legal regulation established in Article 30 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the Statute is construed together with the legal regulation established in Article 29 thereof, it needs to be noted that the head of an establishment of the interior was allowed, while heeding the norms of working time established in Article 29 of the Statute, to instruct an official of the system of the internal service to work overtime, to work during days off and on holidays, whereas the official of the system of the internal service was obliged to carry out the instruction made by the head of the establishment. When Articles 29 and 30 of the Statute are construed together with Paragraph 2 of Article 23 (wordings of 23 April 2002 and 7 June 2007) of the Law on the State Service it becomes clear that even in the situations when an official of the system of the internal service, while carrying out the instruction made by the head of the establishment, had to work overtime, to work during days off and on holidays, the total size (amount) of the additional pay and extra pay to be paid to him could not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary.

19. On 18 November 2008, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 4, 10, 16, 161, 17, 23, 26, 37, 41, 42 of the Law on the State Service, on Supplementing the Law with Articles 261 and 431 and on Amending Annex 3 to Chapter II Thereof. Article 6 of the said law amended Article 23 (wording of 7 June 2007) of the Law on the State Service and set it forth as follows:

Article 23. Remuneration for Work

Remuneration for work of a state servant shall comprise:

1) positional salary;

2) additional pay;

3) extra pay;

4) payment for work performed during days off, on holidays and at night, as well as for work performed overtime and on shifts.”

This article no longer contained the impugned provision of Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, which used to prescribe: “The amount of additional pay and extra pay may not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary”, and the impugned provision of Paragraph 2 (wording of 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, which used to prescribe: “The amount of additional pay and extra pay may not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary. The additional pay established in Items 1 and 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of this Law shall not be included in this amount.”

22. By his Decree (No. 1K-1610) “On Referring the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 4, 10, 16, 161, 17, 23, 26, 37, 41, 42 of the Law on the State Service, on Supplementing the Law with Articles 261 and 431 and on Amending Annex 3 to Chapter II Thereof adopted by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Back to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania for Reconsideration” of 27 November 2008, the President of the Republic referred the said law back to the Seimas for reconsideration. It was held in the (27 November 2008) decree (No. 1K-1610) of the President of the Republic that upon the repeal of the limitation upon the amount of the additional pay and extra pay paid to state servants, the amount of the additional pay and extra pay paid to state servants might see a considerable increase and even exceed the size of the positional salary. Due to this the regulation of remuneration for work of state servants, which was inconsistent and not transparent event at that point, would have become even more distorted.

The President of the Republic suggested that the Seimas:

supplement, by means of Article 6 of the Law, the amended Article 23 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service with the following Paragraph 2:

2. The amount of additional pay and extra pay may not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary. The payment for work performed during days off, on holidays and at night, as well as for work performed overtime and on shifts and the additional pay established in Items 1 and 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of this Law shall not be included in this amount.’;

amend, by means of Article 7 of the Law, the amended Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service, and set it forth as follows:

3. The size of the extra pay shall be established by the person who admits the state servant to office. The amount of the extra pay specified in Items 1 and 2 of Paragraph 1 of this Article may not exceed 60 percent of the positional salary, whereas the size of the extra pay specified in Items 3 and 4 of Paragraph 1 may not exceed 20 percent of the positional salary.’

21. On 9 December 2008, the Seimas, having considered the amendments to the said law suggested in the decree of the President of the Republic, adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 4, 10, 16, 161, 17, 23, 26, 37, 41, 42 of the Law on the State Service, on Supplementing the Law with Articles 261 and 431 and on Amending Annex 3 to Chapter II Thereof, which came into force (with certain exceptions) on 1 January 2009. Article 6 of this law amended and supplemented Article 23 (wording of 7 June 2007) the Law on the State Service, and this article was set forth as follows:

Article 23. Remuneration for Work

1. Remuneration for work of a state servant shall comprise:

1) positional salary;

2) additional pay;

3) extra pay;

4) payment for work performed during days off, on holidays and at night, as well as for work performed overtime and on shifts.

2. The amount of additional pay and extra pay may not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary. The payment for work performed during days off, on holidays and at night, as well as for work performed overtime and on shifts and the additional pay established in Items 1 and 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of this Law shall not be included in this amount.”

Thus, the payment to state servants, inter alia, officials of the system of the internal service, for work during days off, on holidays and at night, and for performing additional assignments which exceed the established work time, which used to be, under the legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 26 of the Law on the State Service, a part of the extra pay paid to them, became, under the legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 (wording of 9 December 2008) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, a constituent part of the remuneration for work of state servants, inter alia, officials of the system of the internal service.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it needs to be noted that the formula “additional assignments which exceed the established work time” employed in Item 3 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 26 of the Law on the State Service and the formula “overtime work” employed in Item 4 (wording of 9 December 2008) of Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service are virtually identical as regards their content.

Having compared Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, which prescribed: “The amount of additional pay and extra pay may not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary”, and Paragraph 2 (wording of 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the same law, which prescribed: “The amount of additional pay and extra pay may not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary. The additional pay established in Items 1 and 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of this Law shall not be included in this amount”, with Paragraph 2 (wording of 9 December 2008) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, which prescribed: “The amount of additional pay and extra pay may not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary. The payment for work performed during days off, on holidays and at night, as well as for work performed overtime and on shifts and the additional pay established in Items 1 and 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of this Law shall not be included in this amount”, it is clear that as regards the aspect impugned by the petitioner, the legal regulation has undergone essential changes. The legal regulation entrenched in Article 23 (wording of 9 December 2008) of the Law on the State Service (differently from the legal regulation entrenched in Article 23 (wordings of 23 April 2002 and 7 June 2007) of the Law on the State Service) did not provide that payment for, inter alia, work during days off, on holidays and at night, as well as for work overtime is included into the total size (amount) limiting the additional pay and extra pay.

The legal regulation established in Article 23 (wording of 9 December 2008) of the Law on the State Service is not impugned by the petitioners. Thus, the legal regulation established in this article is not a matter of investigation in the constitutional justice case at issue.

22. On 17 July 2009, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 of the Law on the State Service which came into force (with certain exceptions) on 31 July 2009.

Articles 1 and 2 of this law amended Paragraph 3 of Article 25 (wording of 7 June 2007) of the Law on the State Service—temporarily, from 1 August 2009 till 31 December 2010, the sizes of additional pay for the qualification class paid to state servants were reduced.

III

1. As mentioned before, the petitioners doubt whether Paragraph 2 (wordings of 23 April 2002 and 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, in the aspect that it was not allowed that the officials of the interior service system be paid fairly for the work performed during days off and holidays as well as at night and for performing additional assignments which exceeded the established work time, was not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

2. The essential feature of the concept of the state service is that the state service is understood as the service to the State of Lithuania and the civil Nation, i.e. as a system of the relations between the state and the persons who are commissioned (entrusted) with discharging certain state functions in ensuring execution of public administration and rendition of public services so that the public interest of the entire state community—the civil Nation—could be guaranteed (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 20 March 2007).

The legal relations of 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 state service are not identical to employment relations, which arise 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); 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, must bear some important characteristics (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 13 December 2004 and 20 March 2007).

The unity of the system of state service does not deny a possibility to regulate certain relations of state service in a differentiated manner; a differentiated legal regulation of the relations of 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 powers established to them, the professional skills necessary to respective state servants and other important factors (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 13 December 2004 and 20 March 2007).

3. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, one should mention the following provisions of the official constitutional doctrine, which were formulated in the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 12 July 2001, 13 December 2004, and 20 March 2007, wherein the constitutional concept of the state service is construed, inter alia, together with the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution:

the right to receive fair pay for work which is entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution implies that the human being must receive fair compensation for work, which would guarantee the working person and members of his family a normal subsistence level; the right of every human being to receive fair pay for work which is entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution must be guaranteed to a state servant to the extent no less than other employees, however, due to the nature of the state service as a specific employment activity, certain peculiarities of its implementation are permissible;

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, they can work in harmful, highly harmful and hazardous or other conditions which deviate from the routine work; 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.

3.1. The opportunity to regulate the relations of the state service in a differentiated manner also implies an opportunity to regulate the relations of payment for work of state servants differently and to establish, inter alia, different systems of payment for work of state servants to different groups (distinguished according to clear and objective criteria) of state servants.

It was held in the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 20 March 2007 that the possibility to choose various systems of remuneration for work and the peculiarities of the relations of the state service, in comparison with the employment relations, also imply a possibility to regulate the relations of payment for work for state servants in a different manner than those of other employees, inter alia, to establish different systems of payment for work of state servants (as well as of other employees of the institutions whose activity is remunerated from the budget) and other working persons.

As mentioned before, the unity of the system of state service does not deny a possibility to regulate certain relations of state service, inter alia, the relations of payment for work of state servants, in a differentiated manner. The differences in the size of the remuneration for work paid to various groups of state servants depend on a great many objective peculiarities of the state service, as, for instance, the character of the corresponding functions assigned to a state institution, the complexity and extent of the functions assigned to the state servant, the responsibility for execution of these functions, peculiarities of the taken posts, a state servant’s professional level, qualification etc.

3.2. It needs to be noted that the legislature has broad discretion in choosing and consolidating in laws a certain system of payment for work of state servants; such system when a salary of a fixed size is established or such system when the minimum or maximum salaries are established for the corresponding position or such system when the remuneration for work is regulated while applying the coefficient on the basis of which a certain established value is taken are not impossible; such remuneration for work may be composed of several constituent parts (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 20 March 2007).

The Constitutional Court has also noted that clear criteria on the basis of which the size of payment for work (remuneration for work) 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; the budget must provide for funds for remuneration for work of the state servants (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 13 December 2004 and 20 March 2007).

3.3. The legislature, while taking account of the peculiarities of payment for work, has discretion to establish various systems of payment for work of state servants, to establish constituent parts of remuneration for work, to establish limitations upon one or several constituent parts (or the amount thereof) of the remuneration for work, however, while regulating the relations of payment for work of state servants one must heed the norms and principles of the Constitution, inter alia, the human right stemming from Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution to receive fair pay for work.

3.4. The right to receive fair pay for work entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution is inseparable from the constitutional principles of equal rights, justice, and a state under the rule of law.

The Constitutional Court has also held more than once that:

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

the constitutional right to fair pay for work is linked also with one of the elements of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, i.e. with the constitutional principle of protection of legitimate expectations; in cases when a certain remuneration for work has been established for a state servant (or other employee) by legal acts, then this remuneration must be paid throughout the duration of the established time; state servants (and other employees) 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 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; it is not permitted to deny the legitimate interests and legitimate expectations of the person by the changes of the legal regulation;

the constitutional principle of protection of legitimate expectations does not mean that the wage 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; even in such exceptional cases the wage may not be reduced in violation of the balance entrenched in the Constitution between the interests of a person and those of the society; the wage 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 the wage must be in line with the constitutional principle of proportionality.

3.5. In its acts (rulings of 28 March 2006 and 22 October 2007, decision of 13 November 2007) the Constitutional Court has noted: both the Government which has the powers, under the Constitution, to execute the state budget, and the Seimas which, under the Constitution, approves the state budget by law, may not decide not to react to such essential change of economic and financial condition of the state, when due to special circumstances (economic crisis, natural calamity, etc.) a particularly difficult economic and financial situation occurs in the state; in such cases, due to objective reasons there may be lack of funds for the execution of state functions and for the satisfaction of public interests; under such circumstances respective legal regulation may be subject to change; it goes without saying, upon the emergence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state there may be difficulties in collecting the revenue provided for in the law on the state budget (and in municipal budgets), thus, the required funds are not obtained for financing respective needs provided for in the law on the state budget (and municipal budgets); in such cases (but, certainly, not exclusively such cases) the state budget may be amended before the end of the budget year; such an option is expressis verbis provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article 132 of the Constitution; while revising the state budget (and municipal budgets) the expenses (appropriations) may be reduced.

The Constitutional Court has also held the following: in case of a difficult economic and financial situation, usually the financing from the budget to all the institutions which exercise state powers, as well as the financing of various spheres which are financed from the resources of the budgets of the state and municipalities, should be revised and reduced (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 28 March 2006 and 22 October 2007, decision of 15 January 2009); when due to an extremely difficult economic and financial situation in the state the legislature adopts a decision to reduce the remuneration for work of officials and other state servants (employees) of the institutions that are funded from state and municipal budgets, the legislature must ascertain that the economic and financial situation of the state is so difficult that it calls for a necessity to reduce the remuneration for work of the said officials and state servants (employees) (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 15 January 2009); such reduction of the remuneration for work must be temporary and grounded upon the circumstances of the extremely difficult economic and financial situation in the state, as, for instance, the collection of the state budget revenue is disordered to the extent that due to this the state is unable to perform the obligations undertaken by it, and such situation in the state is not short-termed (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 15 January 2009); under such circumstances, the legislature may change the legal regulation which establishes the salaries to various persons, and consolidate the legal regulation on the salaries which would be less favourable to these persons, if it is necessary in order to ensure the vital interests of society and the state and to protect other constitutional values (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 28 March 2006 and 22 October 2007, as well as its decision of 15 January 2009); however, also in such cases the legislature must keep a balance between the rights and legitimate interests of the persons, to whom the less favourable legal regulation is established and the interests of society and the state, i.e. the legislature must pay heed to the requirements of the principle of proportionality (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 28 March 2006 and 22 October 2007, as well as its decision of 15 January 2009).

3.6. It needs to be noted that the right to receive fair pay for work is a constitutional human right (Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution).

In its rulings the Constitutional Court has held more than once that, according to the Constitution, it is permitted to limit the human rights and freedoms, including freedom of economic activity, in case the following conditions are observed: this is done by law; the limitations are necessary in a democratic society in order 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.

When the rights and freedoms of a person, inter alia, the human right to receive fair pay for work, are limited, it is not allowed to violate the constitutional principle of proportionality as one of the elements of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, which also means that the measures provided for in the law must be in line with the legitimate objectives which are important to society, and that these measures do not have to restrain the rights and freedoms of a person clearly more than necessary in order to reach these objectives.

It has been mentioned that wages of state servants may be temporarily reduced when a particularly difficult economic and financial situation occurs in the state, however, in such a case one must heed the requirements of the principle of proportionality. It needs to be emphasised that the constitutional principle of proportionality is inseparable from other norms and principles of the Constitution, inter alia, the constitutional principles of equal rights and justice.

In this context, the constitutional principle of proportionality means, inter alia, that when there is a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state and when due to this there is a necessity to temporarily reduce the wages of state servants in order to secure vitally important interests of society and the state and to protect other constitutional values, the legislature is under obligation to establish a uniform and non-discriminatory scale of reduction of wages of state servants whereby with respect to all categories of state servants (and other employees financed from the funds of the state and municipal budgets) the wages would be reduced in a manner not violating the proportions of the sizes of the wages established with regard to different categories of state servants prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state.

While taking account of this, it needs to be noted that the constitutional institute of the state service implies a certain hierarchical system of state servants and differentiated sizes of wages paid to the servants. The proportions of the differences in the sizes of wages of state servants depend on a number of objective peculiarities of the state service, as, for instance, the character of the corresponding functions assigned to a state institution, the complexity and extent of the functions assigned to the state servant, the responsibility for execution of these functions, peculiarities of the taken posts, a state servant’s professional level, qualification etc. Thus, the Constitution does not tolerate any such situations where the wages of state servants, when there is a difficult economic and financial situation in the state, are reduced disproportionately, inter alia, in a manner, where the size of the wage of a state servant of high qualification, who performs a complex job, is made more similar to the wage of a state servant of lower qualification, who performs a less complex job, or where the former wage is equalised with the latter, or where wages of state servants of certain groups are reduced by taking account of not the entire remuneration for work received, but only of individual constituent parts of the remuneration for work of state servants, etc. In such situations not only the constitutional principles of proportionality, equal rights and justice would be denied, but also one would deviate from the constitutional concept of the state service as well as the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution consolidating the human right to receive fair pay for work.

Alongside, it needs to be noted that the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, justice and proportionality do not mean that it is not allowed to establish the limit upon the size of the wage of a state servant below which it would not be permitted to reduce the wage established for state servants (and other employees whose work is remunerated from the funds of the state and municipal budgets) even when there is a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state. It needs to be noted that while establishing this limit one has to take account of the circumstance that, under the Constitution, it is not allowed to establish any such legal regulation whereby the wage of a state servant becomes reduced to a size, where the minimal socially acceptable needs and the living conditions compatible with human dignity would not be secured.

4. The constitutional right of each human being to receive fair pay for work entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution should be construed together with the right (entrenched in the same paragraph) of each human being to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work.

The constitutional right to proper, safe and healthy working conditions means, inter alia, that every employee has the right to such working conditions (work environment, work character, the time of work and rest, tools of work, etc., should be regarded as working conditions) which would not exert negative influence on his life, health, and which would be in line with the requirements of safety and hygiene (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 9 April 2002, 29 April 2008, and 2 September 2009). Alongside, this constitutional right implies the duty of the employer to secure proper, safe and healthy working conditions. It needs to be noted that the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, under which each human being shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, implies also the duty of the state to establish the legal regulation, under which the legal preconditions for implementing this right would be created. While doing so, the state must also establish effective mechanisms for controlling the implementation of this right (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 29 April 2008 and 2 September 2009).

The protection of people’s health is a constitutionally important objective, a public interest, whereas looking after people’s health should be treated as a state function (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 14 January 2002, 26 January 2004, 29 September 2005, and 2 September 2009); the state has the duty to protect human beings from threats to health—to reduce dangers to health whereas in certain cases, as far as possible, to prevent them (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 2 September 2009).

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it needs to be noted that heads of establishments must organise the work of the establishment so that one would follow the limitations established by the legislature upon the state servants’ work, in cases when normal working conditions are deviated from, inter alia, during days off and on holidays as well as at night, also when duties are performed beyond the scope of the normal work load or when additional assignments are done while exceeding the established work time.

5. The Constitutional Court has held more than once that that the Constitution is an integral act, that all its provisions are interrelated and constitute a harmonious system. In its ruling of 13 December 2004, the Constitutional Court held the following: the right of every citizen to receive fair pay for work entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution is a precondition for the implementation of many other constitutional rights, inter alia, it is one of the most important preconditions for the implementation of the right of ownership entrenched in Article 23 Constitution; the right appears in regard to the person who has completed a commissioned task, to demand that the whole remuneration for work (pay) which is due according to the legal acts be paid to him, and that it be paid in due time, thus, the remuneration for work of state servants must also be paid within the time established by law; this right of the person is guaranteed, protected and defended as the right of ownership; 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.

IV

On the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 23 April 2002 and 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

1. It has been mentioned that Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service prescribed:

Article 23. Remuneration for Work

1. Remuneration for work of a state servant shall comprise:

1) positional salary;

2) additional pay;

3) extra pay.

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

2. The impugned Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service established the limitation upon the total size (amount) of additional pay and extra pay paid to state servants—the amount of the additional pay and extra pay could not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary. It has been mentioned that, under Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 4 of the Law on the State Service, the procedure for remuneration for work established in the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002) is applied to statutory state servants, inter alia, to officers of the system of the internal service, without reservations.

3. It has also been mentioned that, under Paragraph 7 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service and Paragraph 6 (wording of 29 April 2003) of Article 36 of the Statute of the Internal Service, the total size (amount) of the additional pay paid to officers of the system of the internal service for a qualification category and the rank could not exceed 55 percent of the positional salary. Under Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service the total size (amount) of the additional pay paid to officers of the system of the internal service for the length of service could not exceed 30 percent of the positional salary. Under Paragraph 3 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 26 of the Law on the State Service and Paragraph 5 (wording of 29 April 2003) of Article 38 of the Statute of the Internal Service, the total size (amount) of the extra pay paid to officers of the system of the internal service, inter alia, for work during days off, on holidays and at night, and for performing additional assignments which exceed the established work time, could not exceed 60 percent of the positional salary.

4. In this ruling, it has been held, inter alia, that heads of establishments must organise the work of the establishment so that one would follow the limitations established by the legislature upon the state servants’ work, in cases when normal working conditions are deviated from, inter alia, during days off and on holidays as well as at night, also when duties are performed beyond the scope of the normal work load or when additional assignments are done while exceeding the established work time.

Thus, the limitation upon the total size (amount) of additional pay and extra pay established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service implies that also heads and other executives of a statutory establishment of the internal service had to organise the work of the establishment, inter alia, so that one would heed the limitation upon the payment for work, which is established in Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of this law, in cases when work was done during days off and on holidays as well as at night, or when additional assignments were done while exceeding the established work time.

5. It has been mentioned that, under the Constitution, the legislature, while taking account of the peculiarities of payment for work, has the discretion to establish various systems of payment for work of state servants, to establish constituent parts of remuneration for work, to establish limitations upon one or several constituent parts (or the amount thereof) of the remuneration for work.

6. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the conclusion should be drawn that, in itself, Paragraph 2 (wording 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service was not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

7. It has been mentioned that, under the legal regulation established in Articles 29 and 30 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the Statute of the Internal Service, the head of an establishment of the interior was allowed to instruct officials of the system of the internal service to work overtime, to work during days off and on holidays, whereas the latter were obliged to carry out the order or instruction made by the head of the establishment.

When the legal regulation, which is established in Article 23 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service and which is impugned by the petitioners, is assessed together with the legal regulation established in Articles 29 and 30 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the Statute of the Internal Service, it needs to be held that there might have been such situations, where extra pay should have been paid to officers of the system of internal service for work during days off, on holidays and at night, and for performing additional assignments which exceeded the established work time in the sizes which, together with the amount of other additional pay and extra pay to be paid to them, exceeded the limit established upon the additional pay and extra pay in Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service.

It is also clear from the arguments of the petitions submitter to the Constitutional Court by the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court and the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioners, as well as from the material of the cases, that the said situations are likely to occur.

8. In this context it needs to be noted that neither Article 23 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service, nor other articles (parts thereof) of Chapter VI “Remuneration for Work” (wording of 23 April 2002) of the same law, which provides that the procedure for remuneration for work of state servants is also applied to statutory state servants, contained any provisions whereby it could have been possible to compensate the servants of the system of the internal service for work during days off, on holidays and at night, and for performing additional assignments which exceeded the established work time, when the amount of the additional pay and extra pay to be paid to them exceeded the limit established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service. Thus, it needs to be held that, due to the absence of such provisions in Chapter VI “Remuneration for Work” (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service, the preconditions occurred for such situations where it was impossible to compensate the servants of the system of the internal service for work during days off, on holidays and at night, and for performing additional assignments which exceeded the established work time, when the amount of the additional pay and extra pay to be paid to them exceeded the limit established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service.

9. It has been mentioned that, under the Constitution, inter alia, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, 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.

10. The Constitutional Court has held more than once that a legal gap, inter alia, legislative omission, always means that the legal regulation of corresponding social relations is established neither explicitly, nor implicitly, neither in the said legal act (part thereof), nor any other legal acts, even though there exists a need for legal regulation of these social relations, while the said legal regulation, in case of legislative omission, must be established, while heeding the imperatives of the consistency and inner uniformity of the legal system stemming from the Constitution and taking account of the content of these social relations, precisely in that legal act (precisely in that part thereof), since this is required by a certain legal act of higher legal force, inter alia, the Constitution itself (the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 8 August 2006 and 5 November 2008, as well as its rulings of 2 March 2009 and 22 June 2009).

11. Thus, under the Constitution, inter alia, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, Chapter VI “Remuneration for Work” (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service, which was applied to officers of the system of the internal service without reservations, should have established the legal regulation whereby it might have been possible to pay justly to officers of the system of the interior for the work during days off and holidays as well as at night, and for additional assignments which exceeded the established work time, when the amount of the additional pay and extra pay to be paid to them exceeded the limit established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service.

12. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the conclusion should be drawn that Chapter VI “Remuneration for Work” (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service, to the extent that it did not establish the legal regulation whereby it might have been possible to pay justly to officers of the system of the interior for the work during days off and holidays as well as at night, and for additional assignments which exceeded the established work time, when the amount of the additional pay and extra pay to be paid to them exceeded the limit established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, was in conflict with the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

13. It has been mentioned that by Article 11 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 3, 4, 8, 9, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 38, 41, 43, 44, 49, 50 and the Annex of the Law on the State Service and Supplementing the Law with Articles 221, 481, 501, which was adopted by the Seimas on 7 June 2007, Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service was supplemented with the second sentence and this paragraph (which is also impugned in the constitutional justice case at issue) was set forth as follows:

The amount of additional pay and extra pay may not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary. The additional pay established in Items 1 and 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of this Law shall not be included in this amount.”

It was also mentioned that, under the legal regulation established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, the additional pay for the length of service was no longer included into the amount of the additional pay and extra pay paid to state servants, inter alia, officers of the system of the internal service, which could not exceed 70 percent of the positional salary (Item 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service) and the one-off additional pay of the size of the positional salary was no longer included into that amount, either (Item 5 (wording of 7 June 2007) of Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service).

14. After the legal regulation established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service is compared with the legal regulation established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, it needs to be held that the legal regulation established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 7 June 2007) Article 23 of the Law on the State Service in the aspect impugned by the petitioner remained virtually the same.

15. After it has been held in this ruling that, in itself, Paragraph 2 (wording 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service was not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, on the grounds of the same arguments, it should also be held that, in itself, the legal regulation established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service was not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, either.

16. After the legal regulation established in Chapter VI “Remuneration for Work” (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service is compared with the legal regulation established in Chapter VI “Remuneration for Work” (wording of 7 June 2007) of the Law on the State Service, it needs to be held that the legal regulation established in Chapter VI “Remuneration for Work” (wording of 7 June 2007) of the Law on the State Service in the aspect impugned by the petitioner virtually remained the same. Chapter VI “Remuneration for Work” (wording of 7 June 2007) of the Law on the State Service also did not establish the legal regulation whereby it might have been possible to pay justly to officers of the system of the interior for the work during days off and holidays as well as at night, and for additional assignments which exceeded the established work time, when the amount of the additional pay and extra pay to be paid to them exceeded the limit established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service.

17. After it has been held in this ruling that Chapter VI “Remuneration for Work” (wording of 23 April 2002) of the Law on the State Service, to the extent that it did not establish the legal regulation whereby it might have been possible to pay justly to officers of the system of the interior for the work during days off and holidays as well as at night, and for additional assignments which exceeded the established work time, when the amount of the additional pay and extra pay to be paid to them exceeded the limit established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, was in conflict with the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, on the grounds of the same arguments, it should also be held that Chapter VI “Remuneration for Work” (wording of 7 June 2007) of the Law on the State Service, to the extent that it did not establish the legal regulation whereby it might have been possible to pay justly to officers of the system of the interior for the work during days off and holidays as well as at night, and for additional assignments which exceeded the established work time, when the amount of the additional pay and extra pay to be paid to them exceeded the limit established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, was in conflict with the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania gives the following

ruling:

1. To recognise that Chapter VI “Remuneration for Work” (wording of 23 April 2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, No. 45-1708) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service, to the extent that it did not establish the legal regulation whereby it might have been possible to pay justly to officers of the system of the interior for the work during days off and holidays as well as at night, and for additional assignments which exceeded the established work time, when the amount of the additional pay and extra pay to be paid to them exceeded the limit established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, was in conflict with the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

2. To recognise that Chapter VI “Remuneration for Work” (wording of 7 June 2007; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, No. 69-2723) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service, to the extent that it did not establish the legal regulation whereby it might have been possible to pay justly to officers of the system of the interior for the work during days off and holidays as well as at night, and for additional assignments which exceeded the established work time, when the amount of the additional pay and extra pay to be paid to them exceeded the limit established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 7 June 2007) of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, was in conflict with the provision “Each human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

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

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

Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
                                                                      Toma Birmontienė
                                                                      Pranas Kuconis
                                                                      Kęstutis Lapinskas
                                                                      Zenonas Namavičius
                                                                      Ramutė Ruškytė
                                                                      Egidijus Šileikis
                                                                      Algirdas Taminskas
                                                                      Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis