Lt

On refusing to interpret the provisions of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001

Case No. 13/2000-14/2000-20/2000-21/2000-22/2000-25/2000-

31/2000-35/2000-39/2000-8/01-31/01

 

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 

DECISION

ON THE PETITION OF THE VILNIUS REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF ITEMS 1 AND 2 OF SECTION II OF THE PART OF REASONING AND OF ITEMS 6 AND 7 OF THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE RULING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA “ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2 OF ARTICLE 4, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 3 OF ARTICLE 5, ITEM 1 OF PARAGRAPH 3, PARAGRAPHS 4, 5 AND 6 OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON THE WORK PAY OF STATE POLITICIANS, JUDGES AND STATE OFFICIALS, AS WELL AS CHAPTER II OF THE APPENDIX TO THE SAME LAW, APPENDIX 6 TO THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON THE APPROVAL OF THE FINANCIAL INDICATORS OF THE 2000 STATE BUDGET AND MUNICIPAL BUDGETS, ARTICLE 9 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW AMENDING THE LAW ON THE APPROVAL OF THE FINANCIAL INDICATORS OF THE 2000 STATE BUDGET AND MUNICIPAL BUDGETS, THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 499) ‘ON THE TEMPORARY EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE FOR THE WORK PAY OF HEADS AND OTHER OFFICIALS OF STATE AUTHORITY, STATE ADMINISTRATION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT BODIES’ OF 29 NOVEMBER 1991, THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 666) ‘ON THE WORK PAY OF JUDGES OF COURTS, OFFICIALS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE AND THE STATE SECURITY DEPARTMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’ OF 24 JUNE 1997, THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 1494) ‘ON A PARTIAL AMENDMENT OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 689) “ON THE WORK PAY OF CHIEF OFFICIALS AND FUNCTIONARIES OF LAW AND ORDER INSTITUTIONS AND OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CONTROL INSTITUTIONS” OF 30 JUNE 1997’ OF 28 DECEMBER 1999 WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA” OF 12 JULY 2001 MEAN ONE OR SEVERAL REASONS SPECIFIED BY THE PETITIONER

 

14 March 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, pursuant to Article 28 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, at its procedural sitting, on 14 March 2006, considered the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, provided in its ruling of 3 July 2003, requesting the construction of “whether Item 6 of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania ‘On the compliance of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 5, Item 1 of Paragraph 3, Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, as well as Chapter II of the Appendix to the same law, Appendix 6 to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets, Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 499) “On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies” of 29 November 1991, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 666) “On the Work Pay of Judges of Courts, Officials and Other Employees of the Prosecutor’s Office and the State Security Department of the Republic of Lithuania” of 24 June 1997, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania’ by which the Constitutional Court dismissed the instituted legal proceedings on the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) ‘On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997’ of 28 December 1999, Item 1 of Section II of the statement part, while specifying that the legal proceedings are dismissed because the established legal regulation is no longer valid; Item 7 of the ruling by which the Constitutional Court dismissed the instituted legal proceedings on Paragraph 1 (on the remuneration to judges and social guarantees) of Article 1 of the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and Item 2 of Section II of the statement part, while specifying that the legal proceedings are dismissed because the established legal regulation is no longer valid, mean one or several of the further specified reasons, which are of essential significance to the court that considers the petitions of the petitioners: that the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) ‘On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997’ of 28 December 1999 and the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets to the extent that these acts are related to the reduction of the remuneration to judges are not in conflict with the Constitution; that the Constitutional Court dismissed the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of these legal acts with the Constitution by reasoning it that under the Constitution a person has the right to protection of his constitutional rights and freedoms not for the whole period of time of the violation of the Constitution, but only to the extent that the violations of these rights and freedoms are continued after the pronouncement of the Constitutional Court’s decision that ruled the legal act (part thereof) to be in conflict with the Constitution, and as the legal regulation established by the said acts had no longer been valid prior to the day of the adoption of the Constitutional Court’s decision, thus, it made no sense to decide on their compliance with the Constitution; that the said decisions to dismiss the legal proceedings were adopted not because of the above-mentioned two reasons, but by executing the requirements of Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court”.

Note: the text of the petition of the petitioner is quoted in this Decision of the Constitutional Court as it was presented by the petitioner, i.e. with the abbreviations and numbering of the items of paragraphs of the Constitutional Court’s ruling whose construction is requested which were made by the petitioner itself.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, by its ruling of 3 July 2003, requests the construction of “whether Item 6 of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania ‘On the compliance of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 5, Item 1 of Paragraph 3, Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, as well as Chapter II of the Appendix to the same law, Appendix 6 to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets, Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 499) “On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies” of 29 November 1991, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 666) “On the Work Pay of Judges of Courts, Officials and Other Employees of the Prosecutor’s Office and the State Security Department of the Republic of Lithuania” of 24 June 1997, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania’ by which the Constitutional Court dismissed the instituted legal proceedings on the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) ‘On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997’ of 28 December 1999, Item 1 of Section II of the statement part, while specifying that the legal proceedings are dismissed because the established legal regulation is no longer valid; Item 7 of the ruling by which the Constitutional Court dismissed the instituted legal proceedings on Paragraph 1 (on the remuneration to judges and social guarantees) of Article 1 of the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and Item 2 of Section II of the statement part, while specifying that the legal proceedings are dismissed because the established legal regulation is no longer valid, mean one or several of the further specified reasons, which are of essential significance to the court that considers the petitions of the petitioners: that the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) ‘On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997’ of 28 December 1999 and the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets to the extent that these acts are related to the reduction of the remuneration to judges are not in conflict with the Constitution; that the Constitutional Court dismissed the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of these legal acts with the Constitution by reasoning it that under the Constitution a person has the right to protection of his constitutional rights and freedoms not for the whole period of time of the violation of the Constitution, but only to the extent that the violations of these rights and freedoms are continued after the pronouncement of the Constitutional Court’s decision that ruled the legal act (part thereof) to be in conflict with the Constitution, and as the legal regulation established by the said acts had no longer been valid prior to the day of the adoption of the Constitutional Court’s decision, thus, it made no sense to decide on their compliance with the Constitution; that the said decisions to dismiss the legal proceedings were adopted not because of the above-mentioned two reasons, but by executing the requirements of Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court”.

2. It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that it requests the Constitutional Court to construe whether Item 1 of Section II of the part of reasoning (in which, according to the petitioner, it is specified that the instituted legal proceedings are dismissed because the corresponding legal regulation is no longer valid), Item 2 of Section II of the part of reasoning (in which, according to the petitioner, it is specified that the instituted legal proceedings are dismissed because the proper legal regulation is no longer valid), Item 6 of the operative part (by which the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of, inter alia, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution were dismissed) and Item 7 of the operative part (by which the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of, inter alia, Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets with the Constitution were dismissed) of the Constitutional Court’s Ruling “On the compliance of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 5, Item 1 of Paragraph 3, Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, as well as Chapter II of the Appendix to the same law, Appendix 6 to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets, Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 499) ‘On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies’ of 29 November 1991, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 666) ‘On the Work Pay of Judges of Courts, Officials and Other Employees of the Prosecutor’s Office and the State Security Department of the Republic of Lithuania’ of 24 June 1997, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) ‘On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997’ of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 12 July 2001 (hereinafter also referred to as the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001) mean one or several of the following reasons:

the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 to the extent that these legal acts are related to the decrease of the remuneration to judges are not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania were dismissed because the legal regulation, established by the said legal acts had been no longer valid prior to the day of the adoption of the said Constitutional Court’s ruling, thus, it made no sense to decide on their compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania because, under the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, a person has the right to protection of his constitutional rights and freedoms not for the whole period of time of the violation of the Constitution, but only to the extent that the violations of these rights and freedoms are continued after the pronouncement of the Constitutional Court’s decision that ruled the legal act (part thereof) to be in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania were dismissed not due to the two said reasons but by executing the requirements of Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court.

3. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, by the said ruling also applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court was not in conflict with Articles 6, 30, 109 and 110 of the Constitution, with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and whether Paragraph 3 of Article 11 and Paragraph 2 (to the extent that, according to the petitioner, it establishes the possibilities of reducing the remuneration to the judge and other social guarantees) of Article 96 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Courts were not in conflict with Articles 5 and 109 and Paragraph 1 of Article 104 of the Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

4. By its decision of 26 January 2006, the Constitutional Court separated the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, to the extent that it requested the construction of what is meant by one or several of the reasons specified by the petitioner, in Items 1 and 2 of Section II of the part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s Ruling “On the compliance of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 5, Item 1 of Paragraph 3, Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, as well as Chapter II of the Appendix to the same law, Appendix 6 to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets, Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 499) ‘On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies’ of 29 November 1991, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 666) ‘On the Work Pay of Judges of Courts, Officials and Other Employees of the Prosecutor’s Office and the State Security Department of the Republic of Lithuania’ of 24 June 1997, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) ‘On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997’ of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 12 July 2001 into an individual case that was given reference No. 13/2000-14/2000-20/2000-21/2000-22/2000-25/2000-31/2000-35/2000-39/2000-8/01-31/01 (i.e. the same number that was given to the constitutional justice case, in which the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001 was adopted).

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

1. On 12 July 2001, the Constitutional Court adopted the Ruling “On the compliance of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 5, Item 1 of Paragraph 3, Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, as well as Chapter II of the Appendix to the same law, Appendix 6 to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets, Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 499) ‘On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies’ of 29 November 1991, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 666) ‘On the Work Pay of Judges of Courts, Officials and Other Employees of the Prosecutor’s Office and the State Security Department of the Republic of Lithuania’ of 24 June 1997, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) ‘On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997’ of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania”.

2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requests the construction of the provisions of Items 1 and 2 of Section II of the part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001 in the aspect pointed out by the petitioner—whether these provisions mean one or several reasons specified by the petitioner.

2.1. In Item 1 of Section II of the part of reasoning of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001 it was held:

On 3 February 1993, the Seimas enacted the Law ‘On the Official Remuneration of Judges of Courts, Employees of the Prosecutor’s Office, State Arbiters and Employees of the National Audit Department of the Republic of Lithuania’ wherein it was prescribed that until respective laws are specified, salaries of judges shall be established by means of government resolutions. The provision of this law that until respective laws are specified, salaries of judges shall be established by means of government resolutions meant a temporary commissioning for the Government to regulate the said relations.

On 29 August 2000, the Seimas enacted the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials by which salaries of judges were established. This means that after this law had gone into effect, the commissioning for the Government to establish salaries of judges, which had been provided for by the aforementioned 3 February 1993 Law ‘On the Official Remuneration of Judges of Courts, Employees of the Prosecutor’s Office, State Arbiters and Employees of the National Audit Department of the Republic of Lithuania’, became null and void. Taking account of the fact that the Law regulates the relations of judges’ salaries differently from the government resolutions, the legal regulation established in the Government Resolution (No. 499) ‘On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies’ of 29 November 1991, the Government Resolution (No. 666) ‘On the Work Pay of Judges of Courts, Officials and Other Employees of the Prosecutor’s Office and the State Security Department of the Republic of Lithuania’ of 24 June 1997 and the Government Resolution (No. 1494) ‘On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997’ of 28 December 1999 is no longer in force. Taking account of this, it should be held that there are the grounds to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings in this part of the case. In this part of the case the instituted legal proceedings shall be dismissed.”

2.2. In Item 2 of Section II of the part of reasoning of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001 it was held:

In Appendix 6 to the 23 December 1999 Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets, ‘Distribution of the Expenses to Law Institutions for Program 1.1 “Implementation of the Outline of the Reform of the Legal System”’ was established. By means of Article 9 of the 13 July 2000 Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets amendments were made in Appendix 6 to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets.

The petitioners—the First Vilnius City Local Court by its two rulings of 16 May 2000 and the Higher Administrative Court by its ruling of 7 November 2000 request an investigation into the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 (on reduction of salaries and other social guarantees of judges) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets with the Constitution to the extent that Appendix 6 to the law provides for the funds for the expenses on the work remuneration of the courts pointed out in the petitions with the Constitution, and into the compliance of Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets by which amendments were made to Appendix 6 to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets which provided the funds for the financing of remuneration for work of particular courts, with the Constitution.

The legal relations regulated by the 23 December 1999 Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and the 13 July 2000 Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets ended on 31 December 2000. At present the budgetary relations are regulated by other law.

Taking account of the fact that the impugned legal regulation is no longer in force, it should be held that there are grounds to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings in this part of the case. In this part of the case the instituted legal proceedings shall be dismissed.”

2.3. In Item 6 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001 it was held:

To dismiss the initiated legal proceedings concerning the compliance of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 499) ‘On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies’ of 29 November 1991, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 666) ‘On the Work Pay of Judges of Courts, Officials and Other Employees of the Prosecutor’s Office and the State Security Department of the Republic of Lithuania’ of 24 June 1997, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) ‘On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997’ of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.”

2.4. In Item 7 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001 it was held:

To dismiss the initiated legal proceedings concerning the compliance of Appendix 6 to Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.”

2.5. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requests the construction of whether the provisions of Items 1 and 2 of Section II of the part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001 mean one or several of the following reasons specified by the petitioner:

the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 to the extent that these legal acts are related to the decrease of the remuneration to judges are not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania were dismissed because the legal regulation, established by the said legal acts had been no longer valid prior to the day of the adoption of the said Constitutional Court’s ruling, thus, it made no sense to decide on their compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania because under the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania a person has the right to protection of his constitutional rights and freedoms not for the whole period of time of the violation of the Constitution, but only to the extent that the violations of these rights and freedoms are continued after the pronouncement of the Constitutional Court’s ruling that ruled the legal act (part thereof) to be in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania were dismissed not due to the two said reasons but by executing the requirements of Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court.

3. Neither the part of reasoning nor the operative part contains any statements that the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997”, specified by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, to any extent are or are not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

Thus, the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting the construction of whether the provisions of Items 1 and 2 of Section II of the part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001 mean that (or also that) (such implication is made by the petitioner) the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 to the extent that these legal acts are related to the decrease of the remuneration to judges are not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, should be treated as a petition, which does not request the Constitutional Court to construe the provisions of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001 specified by the petitioner, but which requests the Constitutional Court to decide whether the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 (to the corresponding extent) are not in conflict with the Constitution.

Such petition of the petitioner should also be regarded as a petition for the Constitutional Court to revise its ruling of 12 July 2001 to the corresponding extent.

4. In Items 1 and 2 of Section II of the part of reasoning of the Constitutional Court’s ruling the arguments and reasons are specified, which (accordingly) are (as well as other arguments and reasons specified in the said Constitutional Court’s ruling) grounds for Items 6 and 7 of the operative part of this Constitutional Court’s ruling.

The petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the provisions of Items 1 and 2 of Section II of the part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001 mean that (or also that) (such implication is made by the petitioner) the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania were dismissed as the legal regulation established by the said legal acts had been no longer valid prior to the day of the adoption of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, thus, it made no sense to decide on their compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania because, under the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, a person has the right to protection of his constitutional rights and freedoms not for the whole period of time of the violation of the Constitution, but only to the extent that the violations of these rights and freedoms are continued after the pronouncement of the Constitutional Court’s decision that ruled the legal act (part thereof) to be in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and whether they mean that (such an implication is also made by the petitioner) the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania were dismissed not because of the other two reasons specified by the petitioner, but by executing the requirements of Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, should be treated as a petition not requesting the Constitutional Court to construe the provisions of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001 specified by the petitioner, but to specify the arguments and reasons consolidating and formulating the provisions of Items 6 and 7 of the operative part of this Constitutional Court’s ruling which (such implication is made by the petitioner), allegedly, are not specified (accordingly) in Items 1 and 2 of Section II of the part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001.

5. Thus, although the Constitutional Court is officially requested to construe (in the aspect specified by the petitioner) the provisions of Items 1 and 2 of Section II of the part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001, actually, the petitioner requests the Constitutional Court:

to decide whether the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 (to the corresponding extent) is not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and in this way to revise the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001;

to specify the arguments and reasons consolidating and formulating the provisions of Items 6 and 7 of the operative part of this Constitutional Court’s ruling which, allegedly, are not specified (accordingly) in Items 1 and 2 of Section II of the part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001.

6. While deciding on the compliance of legal acts (parts thereof) of lower legal force with legal acts of higher legal force, inter alia (and, first of all), the Constitution, and while executing its other constitutional powers, the Constitutional Court administers constitutional justice, guarantees the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system as well as the constitutional legality. The guaranteed administration of justice, supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system and constitutional legality imply that every decision of the Constitutional Court must be argued properly (clearly and rationally) in the corresponding Constitutional Court act. In this context, it should be noted that, as held by the Constitutional Court, a ruling of the Constitutional Court is integral, its operative part is based upon the arguments of the part of reasoning (the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 12 January 2000, 11 February 2004, 13 February 2004, and 10 February 2005).

On the other hand, the situations are not impossible where certain provisions of a ruling or another final act of the Constitutional Court are not clear enough to the subject who must follow and execute that ruling of other act of the Constitutional Court. Nor are such situations impossible, where, due to certain reasons, the Constitutional Court sees that certain provisions of a ruling or another final act of the Constitutional Court have to be construed in order to ensure the proper execution of that ruling of other act of the Constitutional Court so that the said ruling of other act of the Constitutional Court would be followed.

Even though the powers of the Constitutional Court to construe its rulings and other final acts are not expressis verbis consolidated in the Constitution, they doubtlessly arise from the Constitution—the entirety of the constitutional legal regulation (inter alia, the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law), such powers of the Constitutional Court are implied by the constitutional purpose of the Constitutional Court itself to administer constitutional justice, guarantee the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system and constitutional legality. This implies the necessity for the Constitutional Court under the specified circumstances to construe a corresponding ruling or other final act of the Constitutional Court.

The purpose of the institute of construction of rulings and other final acts of the Constitutional Court is to disclose the contents and meaning of corresponding rulings or other final acts of the Constitutional Court more broadly and in more detail if it is necessary in order to ensure the proper execution of that ruling or other final act of the Constitutional Court in order that ruling or other final of the Constitutional Court would be followed.

The powers of the Constitutional Court, which arise from the Constitution, to construe its rulings and other final acts imply the duty of the legislature to establish, by the Law on the Constitutional Court (which, under Paragraph 2 of Article 102 of the Constitution, establishes the status of the Constitutional Court and the procedure for the execution of its powers), the following: the definition of the subjects on whose initiative a ruling or another final act of the Constitutional Court may be construed; the procedure of applying to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting the construction of a ruling or another final act of the Constitutional Court; the form of a legal act by which the Constitutional Court performs the construction of its rulings. The Law on the Constitutional Court can also establish other elements regarding the implementation of the Constitutional Court’s powers to construe its rulings.

7. The procedure of the implementation of the Constitutional Court’s corresponding powers is established in the Law on the Constitutional Court (wording of 3 February 1993, with subsequent amendments and supplements), as well as in the Rules of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (with subsequent amendment and supplement), approved by the Constitutional Court’s Decision “On the Approval of the Rules of the Constitutional Court” of 5 March 2004, which, under Article 3 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, regulates, inter alia, the internal questions of the Constitutional Court.

7.1. In Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court it is prescribed that the rulings of the Constitutional Court may only be officially construed by the Constitutional Court at the request of the parties to the case, of other institutions or persons to whom it was sent, or on its own initiative.

Under Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, a ruling of the Constitutional Court shall be sent to the justices of the Constitutional Court, the parties to the case, the Seimas, the President of the Republic, the Government, the President of the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General and the Minister of Justice. Under Paragraph 2 of Article 60 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the President of the Constitutional Court may order that a ruling of the Constitutional Court should be sent to other institutions, officials, or citizens.

In Item 14 of Section 1 of Chapter VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Court it is prescribed that a ruling of the Constitutional Court is construed upon the request of the subjects specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as well as upon the initiative of the Constitutional Court; a ruling of the Constitutional Court is also construed upon the request of the subjects to whom the ruling of the Constitutional Court was sent and where it is indicated that this is done according to Paragraph 2 of Article 60 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. The instruction to send the ruling according to Paragraph 2 of Article 60 of the Law on the Constitutional Court is given by the President of the Constitutional Court by issuing an order; the Constitutional Court does not construe its rulings upon requests of other subjects.

7.2. The powers of the subjects indicated in Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court to apply to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting the construction of a ruling Constitutional Court mean that the Constitutional Court must be requested to perform the construction of the precisely indicated provisions of the corresponding ruling of the Constitutional Court.

7.3. In Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court it is prescribed that the Constitutional Court must construe its ruling without changing its content. The Constitutional Court has held that while construing its ruling, the Constitutional Court is bound both by the content of the part of resolution and that of reasoning of its ruling (the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 12 January 2000, 11 February 2004, 13 February 2004, and 10 February 2005).

7.4. In Paragraph 2 of Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court it is consolidated that a decision concerning the construction of a ruling of the Constitutional Court shall be adopted as a separate document. The Constitutional Court has held that the decision adopted concerning the construction of a ruling of the Constitutional Court is inseparable from that ruling of the Constitutional Court (the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 12 January 2000, 11 February 2004, 13 February 2004, and 10 February 2005).

8. The provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court that the Constitutional Court must construe its ruling without changing its content mean, among other things, that while construing its ruling, the Constitutional Court cannot construe its content so that the meaning of its provisions, inter alia, the notional entirety of the elements constituting the content of the ruling, the arguments and reasons upon which that ruling of the Constitutional Court is based, is changed.

The indicated provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court also means that the Constitutional Court may not construe what was not investigated in that constitutional justice case, subsequent to which the construed ruling was adopted, either.

Thus, the institute of construction of a ruling (another final act) of the Constitutional Court virtually differs from the institute of revision of a ruling (another final act) of the Constitutional Court.

9. It should to be emphasised that the powers of the subjects specified in Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court to apply to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting the construction of a ruling (certain provisions thereof) of the Constitutional Court do not mean that it is possible to apply to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting the construction of whether any of the provisions of its ruling have only one or more meanings, which are specified by the petitioner, in such a way that the Constitutional Court would have to restrict itself to the alternatives specified by the petitioner. Neither do the said arguments mean that it is possible to apply to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting the construction of whether certain provisions of that ruling were consolidated and formulated due to one or more reasons specified by the petitioner.

It should also be emphasised that the powers of the Constitutional Court, which arise from the Constitution and which are established in the Law on the Constitutional Court, to officially construe its rulings, may not be interpreted that, purportedly, they also include the right and/or duty of the Constitutional Court to construe the arguments or reasons of the consolidation and formulation of its rulings or separate provisions thereof that are not specified in the Constitutional Court’s ruling itself and which (as implications) are specified by the petitioner in his petition requesting the construction of the Constitutional Court’s rulings (provisions thereof).

10. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the conclusion should be drawn that the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Items 1 and 2 of Section II of the part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s Ruling “On the compliance of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 5, Item 1 of Paragraph 3, Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, as well as Chapter II of the Appendix to the same law, Appendix 6 to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets, Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 499) ‘On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies’ of 29 November 1991, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 666) ‘On the Work Pay of Judges of Courts, Officials and Other Employees of the Prosecutor’s Office and the State Security Department of the Republic of Lithuania’ of 24 June 1997, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) ‘On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997’ of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 12 July 2001 mean one or several reasons specified by the petitioner, which, as held in this decision of the Constitutional Court, is, actually, a petition requesting the Constitutional Court to decide whether the Government Resolution (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 (to the corresponding extent) is not in conflict with the Constitution (and thus to revise the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001 to the corresponding extent), as well as a petition requesting the specification of the arguments and reasons consolidating and formulating the provisions of Items 6 and 7 of the operative part of this Constitutional Court’s ruling, which, purportedly, are not specified (accordingly) in Items 1 and 2 of Section II of the part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001, may not be granted subsequent to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania.

Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 28 and 61 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 refuse to construe, subsequent to the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, provided in the 3 June 2003 ruling of the said court, whether Items 1 and 2 of Section II of the part of reasoning and Items 6 and 7 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania Ruling “On the compliance of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 5, Item 1 of Paragraph 3, Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, as well as Chapter II of the Appendix to the same law, Appendix 6 to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets, Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 499) ‘On the Temporary Experimental Procedure for the Work Pay of Heads and Other Officials of State Authority, State Administration and Law Enforcement Bodies’ of 29 November 1991, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 666) ‘On the Work Pay of Judges of Courts, Officials and Other Employees of the Prosecutor’s Office and the State Security Department of the Republic of Lithuania’ of 24 June 1997, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) ‘On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) “On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions” of 30 June 1997’ of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 12 July 2001, mean one or several of the following reasons:

the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 to the extent that these legal acts are related to the decrease of remuneration of judges are not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania were dismissed because the legal regulation established by the said legal acts had been no longer valid prior to the day of the adoption of the said Constitutional Court’s ruling, thus, it made no sense to decide on their compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania because, under the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, a person has the right to protection of his constitutional rights and freedoms not for the whole period of time of the violation of the Constitution, but only to the extent that the violations of these rights and freedoms are continued after the pronouncement of the Constitutional Court’s decision that ruled the legal act (part thereof) to be in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

the instituted legal proceedings on the compliance of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2000 State Budget and Municipal Budgets and the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1494) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 689) ‘On the Work Pay of Chief Officials and Functionaries of Law and Order Institutions and of Law Enforcement and Control Institutions’ of 30 June 1997” of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania were dismissed not due to the two said reasons but by executing the requirements of Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania.

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