Lt

On returning a petition

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

DECISION

ON RETURNING THE PETITION (NO. 1B-40/2006) OF THE KLAIPĖDA REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER ITEM 1 (WORDING OF 26 NOVEMBER 2004 SPECIFIED IN THE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER) OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON SOCIAL INSURANCE OF ACCIDENTS AT WORK AND OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES, ITEM 13.1 (WORDING OF 30 AUGUST 2004 SPECIFIED IN THE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER) OF THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING SOCIAL INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR ACCIDENTS AT WORK AND OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES AS CONFIRMED BY THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 309) “ON THE CONFIRMATION OF THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING SOCIAL INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR ACCIDENTS AT WORK AND OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES” OF 22 MARCH 2004 ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 29, PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 48 AND ARTICLE 52 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF A STATE UNDER THE RULE OF LAW BACK TO THE PETITIONER

 

10 October 2006

Vilnius

 

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius, Toma Birmontienė, Egidijus Kūris, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Ramutė Ruškytė, Vytautas Sinkevičius, Stasys Stačiokas and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis

The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its procedural sitting, has considered the petition (No. 1B-40/2006) of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Item 1 (wording of 26 November 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases and Item 13.1 (wording of 30 August 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases as confirmed by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 309) “On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

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 requesting an investigation into whether Item 1 (wording of 26 November 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases and Item 13.1 (wording of 30 August 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (hereinafter also referred to as the Regulations) as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 309) “On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

2. The petition was received at the Constitutional Court on 7 September 2006.

II

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

1. The impugned items of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases and the Regulations established the legal regulation according to which accidents at work, on the way to work or from work, or established acute occupational diseases, upon investigation of which it is established that they meet the conditions established by the said law, but they have happened, inter alia, when an insured person was drunk or intoxicated through narcotics, toxic or psychotropic substances and when it was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of the work that the insurance payer had instructed him to perform, are not regarded as events insured against.

Thus, in all cases when during the accident the employee was drunk or intoxicated through narcotics, toxic or psychotropic substances and when it was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of the work that the insurance payer had instructed him to perform, that accident, irrespective of the reasons thereof, is regarded as an event not insured against. Such accident is regarded as an event not insured against even in the cases when it happened due to the fault of the employer who did not create safe and healthy working conditions and the drunkenness of the employee was of a low degree and had no influence on the accident. According to the petitioner, thus, the employee (and if he dies—members of his family) is deprived of the right to receive the social insurance benefits for accidents at work even in the cases when drunkenness of the employee had no influence on the accident and not the employee but the employer is guilty of the accident at work.

2. According to the petitioner, previously (before the impugned legal regulation was established) established legal regulation was not so “categorical”: while investigating accidents at work, it used to be established whether the drunkenness of the employee or his intoxication through narcotics, toxic or psychotropic substances, when it was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of the work that the insurance payer had instructed him to perform, had any influence on that accident.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. The Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania provides for general requirements, concerning the content, form and attachments, of petitions presented to the Constitutional Court, requesting an investigation into the compliance of legal acts with the Constitution (Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court), and special requirements concerning rulings of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, of regional, and local courts by which one applies to the Constitutional Court (Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court). The said requirements are concretised in Section 1 of Chapter VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Court.

Under Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, a petition for the investigation of the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution must contain the precise title of the impugned legal act, its number, the date of its adoption, and other data which are necessary for identification thereof, as well as the source of its publication (if it was published). Under Item 8 of the same paragraph, a petition for the investigation of the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution must contain the position of the petitioner concerning the compliance of an appropriate act with the Constitution and legal support of such position containing references to laws.

Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court establishes what must be specified in a petition requesting an investigation into the compliance of a law or other legal act (paragraph thereof) with the Constitution, when courts apply to the Constitutional Court with such petition. Under Paragraph 2 of this article, the court ruling, by means of which the court applies to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting an investigation whether the legal act is not in conflict with the Constitution, must include the legal arguments presenting the opinion of the court on the conflict of a law or other legal act with the Constitution (Item 5), as well as the formulated petition of the court to the Constitutional Court (Item 6).

Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court prescribes, inter alia, that a copy of the whole text of the impugned legal act shall be attached to the petition (Item 1 of Paragraph 3); that 30 copies of the copies are submitted to the Constitutional Court (Item 1 of Paragraph 5).

Under Paragraph 1 (wording of 7 July 2005) of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Procedure of the Publication and Entry into Effect of Laws and Other Legal Acts”, the official publication of laws and other legal acts shall be their publication in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”.

Under Item 15 of Section 1 of Chapter VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, which was approved by the Constitutional Court’s Decision “On Approving the Rules of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania” of 5 March 2004 (with subsequent supplement and amendment), the text of the legal act (part thereof) which is announced in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios” should be considered such a copy.

The general requirements, concerning the content, form and annexes, of petitions presented to the Constitutional Court, requesting an investigation into the compliance of legal acts with the Constitution and the special requirements concerning rulings of courts by which one applies to the Constitutional Court, which are established in the Law on the Constitutional Court and the Rules of the Constitutional Court, are also applicable to the rulings of specialised courts, which are provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article 111 of the Constitution, by which one applies to the Constitutional Court (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 31 March 2005).

2. It should be held that under the Law on the Constitutional Court, including the cases when the impugned legal acts (parts thereof) were amended and/or supplemented, when applying to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting an investigation into the compliance of the legal act (part thereof) with the legal act of higher legal force, inter alia, the Constitution, courts must precisely specify in their ruling the wording of the legal act (part thereof) whose compliance with the legal act of higher legal force is impugned. A copy of the whole text of the impugned legal act (part thereof) of namely that wording—the text of the legal act (part thereof) which is published in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”—must be attached to the petition requesting an investigation into whether the impugned legal act (part thereof) is not in conflict with the legal act of higher legal force, inter alia, the Constitution.

Otherwise, the petition of the court requesting an investigation into the compliance of the legal act (part thereof) with the legal act of higher legal force, inter alia, the Constitution, taking account of all the significant circumstances, may, by an ordinance of the President of the Constitutional Court or by means of a decision of the Constitutional Court, be ruled to be not in line with the requirements of Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 and Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court and, under Paragraph 1 of Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, must be returned to the petitioner. The return of a petition shall not take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court according to the common procedure after the removal of the deficiencies thereof (Paragraph 2 of Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court).

II

1. The petitioner requests an investigation into whether, inter alia, Item 1 (wording of 26 November 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

The petitioner also specifies the number of the law whose compliance with the Constitution it impugns—which is No. VIII-1509—and the fact that Item 1 (wording of 26 November 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of this Law, the compliance of which with the Constitution is impugned, came into force “on 1 January 2005”.

A copy of the whole text of the Law on Amending the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (No. IX-1819), adopted by the Seimas on 11 November 2003—the text published in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”—is attached to the petition.

2. On 23 December 1999, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, which was provided with number VIII-1509. This law has been amended and supplemented more than once.

3. On 11 November 2003, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, whose Article 1 amended the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (wording of 23 December 1999 with subsequent amendments and supplements) and set it forth in its new wording. The Law on Amending the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases was provided with number IX-1819.

In Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Law on Amending the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases it was prescribed that “this Law, with the exception of Article 29” shall come into force “on 1 January 2004”, while in Paragraph 2 of the same article prescribed that “Article 29 of this Law” shall come into force “on 1 January 2005”.

It needs to be noted that the provisions of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 3 of the Law on Amending the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases are formulated imprecisely, as there is no Article 29 in the Law on Amending the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases adopted by the Seimas on 11 November 2003 itself, there are only thee articles therein.

In needs to be held that the specified date of 1 January 2005 is not the date of the commencement of the application of Article 29 of the Law on Amending the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, which was adopted by the Seimas on 11 November 2003, but of Article 29 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (wording of 11 November 2003).

It should be held that the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases of the new wording came into force on 1 January 2004 and it had to be applied from that day, with the exception of Article 29, the date of the commencement of the application of which had to be 1 January 2005.

In this context, it should also be noted that, under Article 2 of the Second Section of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases and the Law on Amending the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, adopted by the Seimas on 11 November 2004, instead of the number “2005” in Paragraph 2 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Article 3 of the Law on Amending the Law on Amending the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases the number “2006” was written. Thus, the commencement of the application of Article 29 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (wording of 11 November 2003) was moved from 1 January 2005 to 1 January 2006.

4. In Paragraph 2 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, it was, inter alia, prescribed:

Occupational accidents, accidents on the way to/from work or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be regarded as events insured against even if upon their investigation it is established that they meet the conditions laid down in Article 6 of this Law, but their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances:

(1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from alcohol, narcotics, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of the work that the insurance payer had instructed him to perform <…>.”

5. The Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (wording of 11 November 2003) has been amended and/or supplemented by: the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending Articles 2, 3, 4, 7, 26 and 27 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (No. IX-2262), adopted by the Seimas on 8 June 2004; the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, the Provisional Law on Compensation for Damage Pertaining to Accidents at Work or Occupational Diseases, the Law on Health Insurance, the Law on Unemployment Social Insurance, the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions, the Law on Composition of the Budget of the State Social Insurance Funds, the Law on Social Integration of the Disabled, the Law on Amending Articles 33, 34, 36 and 45 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions and Supplementing Article 45¹ thereto, the Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 9, 16, 28, 35, 36, 40, 43, 45, 49, 50 and 54 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions and Supplementing Article 556 and Chapter VII Thereto, the Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 10, 28, 29, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 45, 49, 54 and 56 and Supplementing Articles 551, 552, 553, 554 and 555 thereto, and the Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance (No. IX-2540), adopted by the Seimas on 4 November 2004; the Law on Amending the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases and the Law on Amending the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (No. IX-2561), adopted by the Seimas on 11 November 2004; the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance, the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, the Provisional Law on Compensation for Damage Pertaining to Accidents at Work or Occupational Diseases and the Law on State Social Insurance (No. X-211), adopted by the Seimas on 19 May 2005; the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending the Law on State Social Insurance and the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (No. X-475), adopted by the Seimas on 23 December 2005; the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending Articles 3, 13, 15 and 26 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (No. X-668) adopted by the Seimas on 8 June 2006.

6. In the context of the petition at issue, it should be noted that Item 1 (wording of 1 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases impugned by the petitioner has not been amended and/or supplemented either before the petitioner’s application to the Constitutional Court with a petition, or later. At the time of the petitioner’s appeal to the Constitutional Court this item was set forth in its wording of 11 November 2003. It has never been set forth in its wording of 26 November 2004, as specified in the petition of the petitioner.

7. In the context of the petition at issue, it should be noted that even though Item 1 (wording of 1 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, impugned by the petitioner, has not been amended and/or supplemented, Paragraph 2 (wording of 1 November 2003) of Article 7 of this law in which this item is set forth, has been amended and supplemented by the following:

Article 4 of the Law on Amending Articles 2, 3, 4, 7, 26 and 27 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases adopted by the Seimas on 8 June 2004—it amended and newly set forth Item 2 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases;

Article 3 of the Second Section of the Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance, the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, the Provisional Law on Compensation for Damage Pertaining to Accidents at Work or Occupational Diseases and the Law on State Social Insurance adopted by the Seimas on 19 May 2005—it amended and newly set forth Item 6 (wording of 1 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 8 June 2004) of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases.

8. It needs to be assumed that the petition of the petitioner requesting an investigation into whether Item 1 (wording of 26 November 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law should be regarded as a petition requesting an investigation into whether Item 1 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

9. It should be held that the specified inaccuracies of the petition of the petitioner requesting an investigation into whether Item 1 (wording of 26 November 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (in particular, taking account of the fact that the Constitutional Court is requested to investigate whether the item (which is set forth in the wording in which it has never been set forth) of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases is not in conflict with the Constitution) mean that this petition is not in line with the requirements of Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 and Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court and under Paragraph 1 of Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court must be returned to the petitioner.

It has been mentioned that the return of a petition shall not take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court according to the common procedure after the removal of the deficiencies thereof.

III

1. The petitioner requests an investigation into whether, inter alia, Item 13.1 (wording of 30 August 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 309) “On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004 is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

The petitioner also indicates that Item 13.1 (wording of 30 August 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of the Regulations, whose compliance with the Constitution it impugns, came into force on 31 August 2004.

Not only a copy of the whole text of the Government Resolution (No. 309) “On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning on Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004—the text of this resolution published in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”—are attached to the petition, but also copies of the whole text of the Government Resolution (No. 1074) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 309) ‘On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases’ of 22 March 2004” of 26 August 2004 and of the Government Resolution (No. 895) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 309) ‘On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases’ of 22 March 2004” of 17 August 2005—the texts of these government resolutions published in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”.

2. On 22 March 2004, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 309) “On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases”, whose Item 1 confirmed the Regulations of Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases.

This government resolution came into force on 26 March 2004.

3. In Item 13 of the Regulations it is, inter alia, prescribed:

Occupational accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be regarded as events insured against even if upon their investigation it is established that they meet the conditions laid down in Items 7, 8, 10 or 11 of these Resolutions, but their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following conditions:

13.1. The insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from alcohol, narcotics, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of the work that the insurance payer had instructed him to perform.

The inebriation or intoxication at the time of accident at work or acute occupational disease are established under the Procedure for Establishing the State of Inebriation (Drunkenness) or Intoxication of Drivers of Means of Transport or Other Persons, confirmed by the 15 January 1996 resolution (No. 92) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1996, No. 6-158).

If the inebriation or intoxication is not established according to the procedure established in the Second Paragraph of this Item, this fact shall be proved according to the conclusions of the examinations on the established concentration of alcohol and intoxicating substances in the biological media of the organism (blood, urine, saliva and other liquids of the organism) carried out by the person’s health care Institutions, and if there was no examination—according to the clinical symptoms proving inebriation or intoxication from narcotics, toxic or psychotropic substances which are established by doctors of a person’s health institution or other medical specialists, who have necessary qualification and skills, and which are described in the medical documents of the insured person, as well as by referring to the conclusion of the commission formed by the employer or the commission of the investigation of accident at work <…>.”

4. The said government resolution (the Regulations confirmed thereby) have been amended by: the Government Resolution (No. 1074) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 309) ‘On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases’ of 22 March 2004” of 26 August 2004; the Government Resolution (No. 420) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 309) ‘On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases’ of 22 March 2004” of 18 April 2005; the Government Resolution (No. 895) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 309) ‘On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases’ of 22 March 2004” of 17 August 2005; the Government Resolution (No. 297) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 309) ‘On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases’ of 22 March 2004” of 27 March 2006 and by the Government Resolution (No. 906) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 309) ‘On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases’ of 22 March 2004” of 19 September 2006.

5. In the context of the petition at issue, it should be emphasised that Item 13.1 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations had not been amended and/or supplemented before the application of the petitioner to the Constitutional Court with a petition. At the time of the petitioner’s application to the Constitutional Court, Item 13.1 of the Regulations was set forth in its primary wording of 22 March 2004. It has never been set forth in the wording of 30 August 2004 as it is specified by the petitioner.

Moreover, the date of the adoption of the government resolution, the compliance of Item 13.1 of which with the Constitution is impugned by the petitioner, in some places of the petition of the petitioner is also specified wrongly—not 22 March 2004, but 26 March 2004; as mentioned before, this is not the date of adoption of this resolution, but of its coming into force.

6. It needs to be noted that, even though Item 13.1 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations had not been amended and/or supplemented before the application of the petitioner to the Constitutional Court with a petition, Item 13 of the Regulations, which also included impugned Item 13.1, has been amended by the following:

Item 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 1074) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 309) ‘On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases’ of 22 March 2004” of 26 August 2004, which came into force on 31 August 2004—it amended and set forth the first section of Item 13.2 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations in its new wording;

Item 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 906) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 309) ‘On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases’ of 22 March 2004” of 19 September 2006, which was adopted already after the application of the petitioner to the Constitutional Court with the petition and which came into force on 22 September 2006—it amended and set forth the second section of Item 13.2 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations in its new wording.

7. An assumption may be made that the petition of the petitioner requesting an investigation into whether Item 13.1 (wording of 30 August 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 309) “On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004 is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law should be regarded as a petition requesting an investigation into whether Item 13.1 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 309) “On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004 is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

8. An assumption may be made from the arguments of the petition of the petitioner that it had doubts not on the compliance of all Item 13.1 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations, but only of the first section of this item with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

9. It needs to be held that the specified inaccuracies of the petition of the petitioner requesting an investigation into whether Item 13.1 (wording of 30 August 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 309) “On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004 is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (particularly, taking account of the fact that the Constitutional Court is requested to investigate whether the item of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 309) “On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004, set forth in the wording, in which it has never really been set forth, is not in conflict with the Constitution) means that this petition is not in line with the requirements of Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 and Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court and, under Paragraph 1 of Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, must be returned to the petitioner.

It has been mentioned that the return of a petition shall not take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court according to the common procedure after the removal of the deficiencies thereof.

Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1, Paragraph 2 of Article 25, Articles 28, 66, 67 and 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania adopts the following

decision:

To return the petition (No. 1B-40/2006) to the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Item 1 (wording of 26 November 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases and Item 13.1 (wording of 30 August 2004 specified in the petition of the petitioner) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases as confirmed by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic (No. 309) “On the Confirmation of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

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

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

Justices of the Constitutional Court:         Armanas Abramavičius

                                                                              Toma Birmontienė

                                                                              Egidijus Kūris

                                                                              Kęstutis Lapinskas

                                                                              Zenonas Namavičius

                                                                              Ramutė Ruškytė

                                                                              Vytautas Sinkevičius

                                                                              Stasys Stačiokas

                                                                              Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis