Lt

On accidents at work

Case No. 56/06

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

RULING

ON THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISION OF PARAGRAPH 2 (WORDING OF 19 MAY 2005) OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON SOCIAL INSURANCE OF ACCIDENTS AT WORK AND OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES AND THE PROVISION OF ITEM 13 (WORDING OF 22 MARCH 2004) OF THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING SOCIAL INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR ACCIDENTS AT WORK AND OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES AS APPROVED BY THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 309) “ON APPROVING THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING SOCIAL INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR ACCIDENTS AT WORK AND OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES” OF 22 MARCH 2004 WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

29 April 2008
Vilnius

 

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

The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė

Seimas member Zenonas Mikutis, acting as the representative of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, a party concerned

Svetlana Černuševič, Head of the Department of Social Insurance and Pensions of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, and Marija Paskočinienė, Head of the Benefits and Disability Control Section of the State Social Insurance Fund Board under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, acting as the representatives of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, a party concerned

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing, on 16 April 2008, considered constitutional justice case No. 56/06 subsequent to the petition (No. 1B-60/2006) of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, 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 Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases and the provision “Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that they meet the conditions laid down in Items 7, 8, 10 or 11 of these Regulations, however, their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” of Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 309) “On Approving 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 said court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with 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 (hereinafter also referred to as the Law) and the provision “Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that they meet the conditions laid down in Items 7, 8, 10 or 11 of these Regulations, however, their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” of Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (hereinafter also referred to as the Regulations) as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 309) “On Approving the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004 (hereinafter also referred to as government resolution No. 309 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.

II

The petition of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, is grounded on the following arguments.

The Constitution establishes the guarantees of workers regarding the formation of safe and healthy conditions at work as well as the right to receive social assistance in the event of unemployment. According to the petitioner, in the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania it is established that the employer must secure safety and health of employees, as well as create proper and safe working conditions which are non-hazardous to health. Paying social insurance contributions, the employer insures his responsibility against accidents at work.

The impugned 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 and Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations as approved by government resolution No. 309 of 22 March 2004 enshrine the imperative requirement to consider in all cases, regardless of the reasons of an accident, the accident when an employee is inebriated to be an event not insured against. In the presence of such regulation, the employee is considered to be absolutely at fault for the accident at work even when his drunkenness degree was low and it had no influence on the fact that there was an accident, while the accident happened only because of the fact that the employer had not created safe and healthy working conditions. Such regulation violates the Constitution, inter alia, Paragraph 1 of its Article 29, Paragraph 1 of its Article 48 and Article 52 thereof, and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

III

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court’s hearing, written explanations were received from the representative of the Seimas, a party concerned, who was Seimas member Z. Mikutis, and the representatives of the Government, a party concerned, who were S. Černuševič and M. Paskočinienė, in which it is stated that the impugned provisions of the legal acts are not in conflict with the Constitution.

1. The position of Seimas member Z. Mikutis, the representative of the Seimas, a party concerned, is based on the following arguments.

1.1. If the behaviour of a person does not meet the standards of behaviour at the working place which are established by law, i.e. he is inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic or other substances, the risk for an accident at work increases and a threat arises for public interests. When it is established by means of the impugned regulation that an accident at work which happened to an inebriated person is not considered an event insured against, namely the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is followed. When choosing any job, a person has the right (in case of an event insured against) to receive social insurance benefits for accidents at work, however, he reasonably loses them, if he consciously does not follow the requirements established by the legal acts (i.e., when he is inebriated), therefore, such recognition of accidents at work as events not insured against is not in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution.

1.2. The impugned provision of the Law is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, since the duty of the employer, which stems from the Constitution, to ensure that safety requirements for the employees at the place of work are followed, is also implemented implicitly by defining accidents at work which happened with regard of inebriated persons as events which are not insured against. The inebriated employees should not expect that the state will implement its duties regardless of the circumstances of the accident at work, since, otherwise, the content and essence of the social assistance which is established in Article 52 of the Constitution and which is guaranteed in the cases which are provided for in the Constitution and laws would be distorted.

2. The position of S. Černuševič, a representative of the Government, a party concerned, is based on the following arguments.

2.1. When being inebriated at work, a person obviously violates his constitutional duty to follow laws, and this duty stems from the principle of a state under the rule of law. While implementing the requirements of the laws grounded on the constitutional principles, the Government established in the impugned resolution a reasonable requirement for persons to implement their duties. The state social insurance benefits in the presence of the established regulation (to the extent impugned by the petitioner) are not paid namely because of the fact that by such regulation established by the Government one seeks to give equal opportunities to all working persons to receive the said benefits (and not to abuse this right by those inebriated persons who are at work when the event insured against takes place), thus, the said regulation is in compliance with Article 29 of the Constitution.

2.2. The right to proper and safe conditions at work which is enshrined in Article 48 of the Constitution would be violated if the government resolutions did not establish the duty for the employees to properly implement their work functions (inter alia, to abstain from using intoxicants at work).

2.3. In case of the death of a person who suffered injury, his family members do not lose the right to apply for the state social insurance widows’ and/or orphans’ pensions even in those cases, when the accident at work is not considered an event insured against and the person who suffered injury (in case of his death—his family members) does not acquire the right to the social insurance benefit for accidents at work, thus, such regulation is not in conflict with Article 52 of the Constitution.

3. In the written explanations of M. Paskočinienė, a representative of the Government, a party concerned, it is stated that after a requirement has been established in the government resolution to consider, in all cases, an accident at work during which the insured person was inebriated to be an event not insured against, the constitutional principle of all persons equality before the law has been implemented. This principle implies the duty of the legislature to require the employees to follow the principles of reasonableness, justice and good faith, not to abuse their rights, inter alia, not to drink alcohol (since it is a gross breach of work discipline). Such regulation when the employees who abuse their rights, inter alia, who drink alcohol at work, lose their social assistance in case of an accident, is in conformity also to the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law because the restriction of the use of alcohol established in the legal acts is a part of state policy which is implemented while creating a healthy society, and a safe and strong state.

IV

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court’s hearing, written explanations were received from P. Koverovas, State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, J. Andriuškevičiūtė, a senior adviser of the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas, M. Mikaila, Director of the State Social Insurance Fund Board under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, and J. Naujalis, Deputy Chief State Labour Inspector of the Republic of Lithuania,.

V

At the Constitutional Court’s hearing, the representative of the Seimas, a party concerned, who was Seimas member Z. Mikutis, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in his written explanations.

At the Constitutional Court’s hearing, the representatives of the Government, a party concerned, who were S. Černuševič and M. Paskočinienė, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in their written explanations, as well as presented additional explanations.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. The Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requests 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 and the provision “Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that they meet the conditions laid down in Items 7, 8, 10 or 11 of these Regulations, however, their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” of Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 309) “On Approving 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. It is obvious from the arguments of the petition of the petitioner that he doubts whether the provision “accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law and the provision “Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” of Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations as approved by government resolution No. 309 of 22 March 2004, in the aspect that those accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is established that the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), but the insured person’s inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances was not the reason of the accident at work or established acute occupational disease, are not considered events insured against, are not in conflict with the provision “Each human being <...> shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in the event of unemployment” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.

II

1. On 23 December 1999, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases which came into force on 1 January 2000. Under Article 1 of the Law, this Law regulated the relations of social insurance of an accident at work, on the way to or from work and occupational disease occurrences, stipulated the categories of persons who are insured with this type of social insurance, the rights to such insurance benefits, conditions, calculation and payment of benefits, and defined the events which are insured or not insured against.

2. Item 1 (wording of 23 December 1999) of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases prescribed:

The events insured against shall not include the accidents at work, upon investigation of which it was established that they had taken place as a result of:

(1) the fact that the person who suffered injury was intoxicated from alcohol, narcotics or toxic materials and this did not have any connection with the technological process.”

The Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (wording of 23 December 1999) has been amended and supplemented more than once, however, Item 1 (wording of 23 December 1999) of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 thereof has not been amended and supplemented.

3. It needs to be noted that according to Item 1 (wording of 23 December 1999) of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, the state of the insured person (intoxication from alcohol, narcotics or toxic substances) during the accident at work was not made absolute; under this regulation, only those accidents at work, upon investigation of which it was established that they had happened because of the fact that the person who suffered injury was intoxicated from alcohol, narcotics or toxic substances and it was not related to the technological process, were not defined as events insured against.

It needs to be noted that after coming into force of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (wording of 23 December 1999), the Republic of Lithuania Provisional Law on Compensation for Damage Pertaining to Accidents at Work or Occupational Diseases which was adopted by the Seimas on 1 July 1997 and which came into force on 1 September 1997, continues to be in effect; the said law is applied for compensation for damage: (1) pertaining to accidents at work which happened until 31 December 1999 inclusive, and to occupational diseases which were considered, under the established procedure, to be occupational diseases until 31 December 1999 inclusive; (2) pertaining to occupational diseases which were considered, under the established procedure, to be occupational diseases after 1 January 2000 to those victims who after 1 January 2000 were not insured under the provisions of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (Paragraph 7 (wording of 29 May 2003) of Article 23 of the Law).

4. On 8 May 2000, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 506) “On Approving the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” which came into force on 11 May 2000 and which approved the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (hereinafter also referred to as the Regulations as approved by government resolution No. 506 of 8 May 2000) which regulated the procedure for allocation and payment of the insurance benefits from the funds allocated for social insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases. They did not enumerate the cases when accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases are considered or are not considered events insured against.

The Regulations as approved by government resolution No. 506 of 8 May 2000 have been amended more than once, however, the cases when the accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases were considered or were not considered events insured against were not enumerated therein.

5. On 11 November 2003, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, whose Article 1 set forth the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases in its new wording. The Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases in its new wording came into force as from 1 January 2004, with the exception of its Article 29 which had to come into force as from 1 January 2005.

6. The Law (wording of 11 November 2003) establishes the relations of social insurance of an accident at work, on the way to and from work, and occupational disease occurrences, stipulates the categories of persons who are insured with this type of social insurance, the rights to such insurance benefits, conditions, calculation and payment of benefits, and defines the events insured or not insured against (Article 1). Under the Law, in the cases specified in this Law the social insurance of an accident at work compensates the income which was not received due to the events insured against (accidents at work, on the way to or from work or occupational diseases) for the persons who are insured by this kind of insurance, and in case of their death in the cases of events insured against—for the members of their families (Paragraph 1 of Article 2); the services of treatment and medical rehabilitation of the persons who suffered injury are compensated under the procedure established in the Law on Health Insurance (Paragraph 2 of Article 2).

Under the Law (wording of 11 November 2003), due to an event insured against, the insured person, who partially or fully lost his working capacity, shall be paid the following from the funds allocated for social insurance against accidents at work from the budget of the State Social Insurance Fund: a benefit for a disease due to an accident at work, on the way to or from work, or a benefit for an occupational disease (Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 11), one-off compensation for the lost working capacity (Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 11), periodic compensation for the lost working capacity (Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 11), upon death of the insured person because of an event insured against, his family members shall be paid a one-off insurance benefit in equal parts (Paragraph 2 of Article 11), upon death of the insured person because of an event insured against, his family members shall be paid a periodic insurance benefit in equal parts (Paragraph 3 of Article 11).

Under the Law, an accident at work is an event at work, including a traffic accident at the time of work, which was investigated under the established procedure and considered an accident at work, whose consequence is the employee’s injury (minor, major, fatal); an event at work, when the employee died because of a disease not linked with the job, is not defined as an accident at work (Paragraph 11 of Article 3); an occupational disease is sudden or chronic deterioration in the health of an employee, caused by one or more harmful and/or dangerous factors in the work environment, which in accordance with the established procedure has been considered an occupational disease (Paragraph 14 of Article 3).

In this context, it needs to be noted that, under Item 2 (wording of 1 July 2003) of Paragraph 4 of Article 42 titled “Classification of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Safety and Health of Employees, which was adopted by the Seimas on 1 July 2003 and which came into force on 16 July 2003, a sudden occupational disease is a sudden disorder of health of an employee which is caused by a short-term (one-off or during one working day) dangerous feature (features) of the working environment, which is characterised by a sudden effect.

7. It needs to be noted that Article 6 titled “The Events Insured Against” (wording of 23 December 2005, effective at the time of the consideration of the constitutional justice case at issue) of the Law consolidates the conditions, upon establishment of which accidents at work or occupational diseases are considered events insured against.

Paragraph 1 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Article 7 titled “The Events Not Insured Against” of the Law establishes a general rule, under which, the accidents at work, on the way to or from work, or the established occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is established that they do not meet the conditions established in Article 6 of this Law, are not considered events insured against.

Under Paragraph 2 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Article 7 of the Law, whose provision in the specified aspect is impugned in this constitutional justice case, accidents at work, on the way to or from work, or established acute occupational diseases also were not considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that even though they meet the conditions laid down in Article 6 of this Law, their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer; (2) the insured person suffered from his own deed, in which the institution of pre-trial investigation or the court established features of a criminal deed or that this deed is related to an administrative violation of law; (3) the insured person deliberately (on purpose) aimed that the accident would happen; (4) the insured person suffered from a disease which was not related to the job; (5) the insured person arbitrarily (without the employer’s knowledge) worked for himself (in his interests); (6) violence was used against the insured person, if the circumstances and reasons of the violence are not related to work.

Thus, under Paragraph 2 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Article 7 of the Law, in case there were at least one of these circumstances, accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases were not considered events insured against.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it needs to be noted that under Paragraph 2 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Article 7 of the Law, one of the independent circumstances when accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases are not considered events insured against is the insured person’s inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (when it is not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer).

The Law, inter alia, Article 7 (wording of 11 November 2003) thereof, has been amended and supplemented. 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 has been amended by, inter alia, Article 4 of 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 (wording of 24 June 2004), which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 June 2004—after the word “violation”, the words “save the violations of the normative legal acts on safety or hygiene at work” were included, and this item was set forth as follows: “(2) the insured person suffered from his own deed, in which the institution of pre-trial investigation or the court established features of a criminal deed or that this deed is related to an administrative violation of law, save the violations of the normative legal acts on safety or hygiene at work”; Article 3 of Section II of 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, and the Law on State Social Insurance, which was adopted by the Seimas on 19 May 2005 and which came into force on 1 July 2005, supplemented Item 6 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases—after the word “work”, the words “save the cases, when the accident happens on the way to or from work” were included and this item was set forth as follows: “(6) violence was used against the insured person, if the circumstances and reasons of the violence are not related to work, save the cases, when the accident happens on the way to or from work”, however, the provision “accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7, which is in the specified aspect impugned by the petitioner in this constitutional justice case, has not been amended and/or supplemented.

8. While construing the provision “accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law, which is impugned by the petitioner, it should be noted that the legal regulation enshrined in it includes the legal situations where:

accidents at work or established occupational diseases are not considered events insured against, inter alia, in the cases when the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), and the accident at work or the insured person’s falling ill with an acute occupational disease was caused namely by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances;

accidents at work or established occupational diseases are not considered events insured against, inter alia, in the cases when the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), but the accident at work or the insured person’s falling ill with an acute occupational disease was caused not by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances.

Therefore, under the regulation enshrined in the provision “accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law, accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases are not considered events insured against both in the cases when the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), and the accident at work or the insured person’s falling ill with an acute occupational disease was caused namely by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, and in the cases when the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), but the accident at work or the insured person’s falling ill with an acute occupational disease was caused not by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances.

9. On 22 March 2004, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 309) “On Approving the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” whose Item 2 recognised the Government Resolution (No. 506) “On Approving the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 8 May 2000 and the government resolutions which amended it as no longer valid, and whose Item 1 approved the new Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases.

Under Item 1 of the Regulations as approved by government resolution No. 309 of 22 March 2004, the Regulations regulate the recognition of accidents at work, to or from work, and occupational diseases as events insured against, the allocation and payment of the insurance benefits and establish the procedure of their calculation and payment.

10. Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations, inter alia, provides:

13. Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against, if upon their investigation it is established that they meet the conditions laid down in Items 7, 8, 10 or 11 of these Regulations, however, their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances:

13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer.”

Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004 of the Regulations as approved by government resolution No. 309 of 22 March 2004 has been amended and supplemented more than once, however, the impugned provision “Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against, if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” of Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations has not been amended or supplemented.

III

1. In this constitutional justice case regarding the compliance 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 legal acts (paragraphs thereof) are impugned which regulate the relations linked with the provision of social assistance of a corresponding kind.

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

3. While construing Article 52 of the Constitution, in its rulings the Constitutional Court has held more than once: under the Constitution, the State of Lithuania is socially oriented and every citizen of it has the right to social protection; the social maintenance, i.e. contribution of the society to maintenance of such its members who are incapable of providing themselves from work or other means or who are not sufficiently provided as a result of important reasons provided by law, is deemed to have the status of a constitutional value; the measures of social protection express the idea of social solidarity, they help a person to protect himself from possible social hazards; pensions and social assistance provided for in Article 52 of the Constitution are one of the forms of social protection; the provisions of Article 52 of the Constitution guaranteeing citizens’ right to social maintenance, obligate the state to establish sufficient measures to implement and legally protect the said right; the formula “the state shall guarantee” of Article 52 of the Constitution means, inter alia, that various types of social assistance are guaranteed for the persons on the bases that are established in laws; separate types of social assistance, persons who are granted social assistance, the bases and conditions of granting and paying the social assistance, amounts thereof may, according to the Constitution, be set solely by law; the legal regulation of the social assistance relations is one of the most important guarantees of the constitutional right to social assistance.

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

5. The constitutional right to proper, safe and healthy working conditions means, inter alia, that every employee has the right to such working conditions which would not exert negative influence on his life, health, and which would be in line with the requirements of security and hygiene (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 9 April 2002). At the same time, this constitutional right implies the duty of the employer to ensure the suitability, safety and healthiness of working conditions. A human right to proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, which stems from the Constitution, inter alia, Paragraph 1 of its Article 48, does not deny also the duty of every employee to follow the requirements of safety at work.

It needs to be noted that the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, under which each human being shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, implies also the duty of the state to establish the legal regulation, under which the legal preconditions for implementing this right would be created. While doing so, the state must also establish the effective mechanisms of control over the implementation of this right.

6. In its rulings, the Constitutional Court has held more than once that the Constitution is an integral act; the norms and principles of the Constitution constitute a harmonious system, it is not permitted to construe any provision of the Constitution so that the content of any other constitutional provision might be distorted or denied, since, thus, the essence of the entire constitutional regulation would be distorted, the balance of values entrenched in the Constitution would be disturbed.

7. While construing Article 52 of the Constitution together with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, under which each human being may freely choose a job or business, and shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive, inter alia, social security in the event of unemployment, as well as with Paragraph 1 of Article 53 of the Constitution, under which the state shall also take care of people’s health, and, also taking account of the constitutional principle of justice and the imperative of social harmony which is enshrined in the Constitution, it needs to be held that the state is constitutionally obligated to render respective social assistance to the person whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe, and unhealthy working conditions (including accidents at work and occupational diseases) and to secure provision of corresponding social assistance; the legislature may choose and consolidate in laws a model of provision of the said assistance, inter alia, various forms thereof (state, private, etc.), however, it is not permitted to establish any such legal regulation which would create preconditions for the emergence of a situation where a person whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe, and unhealthy working conditions (including accidents at work and occupational diseases) would not receive any respective social assistance.

8. While taking account of various factors, inter alia, the resources, material and financial capabilities of the state and society, and regulating the relations linked with rendering social assistance to a person whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions (including accidents at work and occupational diseases) in a corresponding manner, the legislature has wide discretion. Certain grounds, conditions and amounts of allocation and payment of such social assistance which are established by law may be varied ones. It also needs to be noted that when regulating relations linked with rendering social assistance to the person whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions (including accidents at work and occupational diseases), one must heed the norms and principles of the Constitution, inter alia, the duty of the state established in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof to ensure the right of every human being to have proper, safe and healthy working conditions, and social security in the event of unemployment, the duty of the state, which is enshrined in Article 52, to guarantee to citizens the right to receive old age and disability pensions as well as social assistance in the event of unemployment, sickness, widowhood, loss of the breadwinner, the duty of the state, which is enshrined in Paragraph 1 of Article 53, to take care of people’s health, as well as the constitutional principles of equal rights of all persons and of proportionality. It is not permitted to establish any such legal regulation whereby the appearance of the right of a person whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions (including accidents at work and occupational diseases) to social assistance, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, would be related to constitutionally unreasoned conditions, subjective decisions of certain institutions or officials, or other conditions which could not cause such impairment of the person’s health (let alone the one causing the person’s death).

9. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it needs to be emphasised that, under the Constitution, the legislature may also not establish any such legal regulation whereby the appearance of the rights of the person, whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions which did not depend (and could not depend) on the actions and the state of that person (including accidents at work and occupational diseases) to social assistance would be related to the state of this person (inter alia, his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances), when such state of the person did not cause and could not cause the impairment of his health in general. Upon establishment of such legal regulation, one would groundlessly make one of the said bases—the state of the person—for non-provision of the social assistance, which stems from the Constitution, absolute; one would also disregard the imperatives which stem from the Constitution, inter alia, Paragraph 1 of its Article 48, Article 52 and Paragraph 1 of Article 53 thereof, and from the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

IV

On the compliance of the provision of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases and the provision of Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 309) “On Approving the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004 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.

1. The Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, impugns the compliance of the provision “accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” (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, to the extent that those accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is established that the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), but the insured person’s inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances was not the reason of the accident at work or established acute occupational disease, are not considered events insured against, with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision “Each human being <...> shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in the event of unemployment” of 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. It has been mentioned that the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, under which each human being shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, implies also the duty of the state to establish the legal regulation, under which the legal preconditions for implementing this right would be created; when regulating relations linked with rendering social assistance to the person whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions (including accidents at work and occupational diseases), one must heed the norms and principles of the Constitution; it is impermissible to establish any such legal regulation whereby the appearance of the right of a person whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions (including accidents at work and occupational diseases) to social assistance, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, would be related to constitutionally unreasoned conditions, subjective decisions of certain institutions or officials, or other conditions which could not cause such impairment of the person’s health (let alone the one causing the person’s death).

3. In this ruling of the Constitutional Court it has also been held that the human right to proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, which stems from the Constitution, inter alia, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, does not deny also the duty of every employee to follow the requirements of safety at work. In this context it needs to be noted that at work every employee must be sober and not intoxicated from narcotic, toxic and psychotropic substances.

The Constitutional Court has held: alcoholism is a universally recognised social evil; drunkenness of a person or his intoxication through narcotic or toxic substances negatively affects the human being (he is incapable of controlling himself, he perceives the occurring situation inadequately, co-ordination of his actions and his self-possession are slackened, frequently due to such intoxication various negative effects occur, due to it laws are violated (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 3 December 1997); consumption of alcohol may cause universally known negative consequences to the human health, public order and security of members of society, as well as to other values which are protected and defended by law (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 21 January 2008).

4. In this ruling of the Constitutional Court it has also been held that, under the Constitution, inter alia, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 thereof, the legislature may not establish any such legal regulation whereby the appearance of the right of the person, whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions which did not depend (and could not depend) on the actions and state of that person (including accidents at work and occupational diseases), to social assistance would be related to the state of this person (inter alia, his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances), when such state of the person did not cause and could not cause the impairment of his health in general.

5. It has been mentioned that under the legal regulation enshrined in the provision “accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law, accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases are not considered events insured against both in the cases when the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), and the accident at work or the insured person’s falling ill with an acute occupational disease was caused namely by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and in the cases when the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), but the accident at work or the insured person’s falling ill with an acute occupational disease was caused not by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances.

5.1. The legal regulation which is enshrined in the impugned provision of the Law, to the extent that it provides that the accidents at work or the established acute occupational diseases are not considered events insured against when the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), and the accident at work or the insured person’s falling ill with an acute occupational disease was caused namely by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, is constitutionally grounded, meets the constitutional principles of proportionality and justice and does not deviate from the notion of social assistance which is enshrined in the Constitution.

5.2. One should assess differently the legal regulation enshrined in the impugned provision of the Law to the extent that it provides that the accidents at work or the established acute occupational diseases are not considered events insured against when the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), but the accident at work or the insured person’s falling ill with an acute occupational disease was caused not by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, but by improper, unsafe, and unhealthy working conditions. By such legal regulation, one makes absolute one of the circumstances of recognition of the accident at work or falling ill with an acute occupational disease as an event not insured against—the state of the insured person (inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances) irrespective of whether the accident at work happened or the insured person fell ill with an acute occupational disease as a result of improper, unsafe, and unhealthy working conditions which were not caused or could not be caused by actions and/or state of this person. Under such legal regulation, an accident at work or falling ill with an acute occupational disease is not considered an event insured against also in the case, when the health of the insured person who was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, was impaired not as a result of the said state, but as a result of improper, unsafe, and unhealthy working conditions.

Therefore, such legal regulation is not constitutionally grounded, it does not comply with the constitutional principles of proportionality and justice and it denies the right of a person, whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe, and unhealthy working conditions, to social assistance which is enshrined in the Constitution, inter alia, in Paragraph 1 of its Article 48 and Article 52 thereof.

6. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the conclusion should be drawn that the provision “accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” (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, to the extent that it provides that those accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is established that the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, however, the insured person’s inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances was not the reason of the accident at work or established acute occupational disease, are not considered events insured against, is in conflict with the provision “Each human being <...> shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in the event of unemployment” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

7. It has been mentioned that the petitioner impugns the compliance of the provision “Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against, if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” of Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations as approved by government resolution No. 309 of 22 March 2004, in the aspect that that those accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is established that the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), but the insured person’s inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances was not the reason of the accident at work or established acute occupational disease, are not considered events insured against, with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision “Each human being <...> shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in the event of unemployment” of 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. After one compares the provision “Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against, if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” of Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations as approved by government resolution No. 309 of 22 March 2004 with the provision “accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law, it is obvious that these provisions establish identical legal regulation.

9. After it has been held that the provision “accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law, to the extent that it provides that those accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is established that the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, however, the insured person’s inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances was not the reason of the accident at work or established acute occupational disease, are not considered events insured against, is in conflict with the provision “Each human being <...> shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in the event of unemployment” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it should also be held that the provision “Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against, if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” of Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 309) “On Approving the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004 is in conflict with the provision “Each human being <...> shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in the event of unemployment” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

10. Having held that the impugned provision (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 and the impugned provision of Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 309) “On Approving the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004 to the specified extent are in conflict with the provision “Each human being <...> shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in the event of unemployment” of 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 Constitutional Court will not further investigate the compliance of the impugned provisions of the legal acts to the specified extent with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution.

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

ruling:

1. To recognise that the provision “accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” (wording of 11 November 2003, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2003, No. 114-5114) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2005, No. 71-2557) of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, to the extent that it provides that those accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is established that the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, however, the insured person’s inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances was not the reason of the accident at work or established acute occupational disease, are not considered events insured against, is in conflict with the provision “Each human being <...> shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in the event of unemployment” of 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.

2. To recognise that the provision “Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against, if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” of Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2004, No. 44-1448) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 309) “On Approving the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004, to the extent that it provides that those accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is established that the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, however, the insured person’s inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances was not the reason of the accident at work or established acute occupational disease, are not considered events insured against, is in conflict with the provision “Each human being <...> shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in the event of unemployment” of 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 ruling of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.

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

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