Lt

On the minimum monthly salary and the minimum hourly remuneration

Case No. 32/06-49/06-57/06-58/06-59/06-60/06-61/06-62/06-65/06-66/06-67/06

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

RULING

ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 187 OF THE LABOUR CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, ITEMS 1 AND 2 OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 937) “ON INCREASING MINIMUM WORK REMUNERATION” OF 18 JULY 2003, ITEMS 1 AND 2 OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 316) “ON INCREASING MINIMUM WORK REMUNERATION” OF 24 MARCH 2004, ITEMS 1 AND 2 (WORDINGS OF 4 APRIL 2005 AND 27 MARCH 2006) OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 361) “ON INCREASING MINIMUM WORK REMUNERATION” OF 4 APRIL 2005, AND ITEM 1 (WORDING OF 27 MARCH 2006) OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 298) “ON INCREASING MINIMUM WORK REMUNERATION” OF 27 MARCH 2006 WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 

20 March 2007

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

Seimas members Saulius Pečeliūnas and Raimondas Šukys, acting as the representatives of a group of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, a petitioner

Algirdas Sysas, Deputy Speaker of the Seimas, and Ona Buišienė, Director of the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas, acting as the representatives of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, on 31 January 2007, 14 February 2007 and 19 February 2007, in its public hearings considered case No. 32/06-49/06-57/06-58/06-59/06-60/06-61/06-62/06-65/06-66/06-67/06 subsequent to:

the petition of a group of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, consisting of Saulius Pečeliūnas, Kazys Starkevičius, Donatas Jankauskas, Rytis Kupčinskas, Edmundas Pupinys, Vida Marija Čigriejienė, Raimondas Šukys, Arimantas Dumčius, Raimundas Palaitis, Liudvikas Sabutis, Henrikas Žukauskas, Povilas Jakučionis, Ramūnas Garbaravičius, Algirdas Monkevičius, Vaclovas Karbauskis, Vilija Aleknaitė-Abramikienė, Rimantas Jonas Dagys, Petras Auštrevičius, Vytautas Čepas, Gintaras Šileikis, Irena Degutienė, Jurgis Razma, Antanas Matulas, Vincė Vaidevutė Margevičienė, Audrius Endzinas, Algis Kašėta, Algirdas Vrubliauskas, Rimantas Remeika, Vytautas Sigitas Draugelis, Danutė Bekintienė, Dailys Barakauskas, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-31/2006);

the petition of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-54/2006);

the petition of the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-62/2006);

the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-64/2006);

the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-65/2006);

the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-66/2006);

the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-67/2006);

the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-68/2006);

the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-71/2006);

the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-72/2006);

the petition of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-73/2006).

By the Constitutional Court’s decision of 23 January 2007, petition No. 1B-31/2006 of a group of members of the Seimas, petition No. 1B-54/2006 of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, petition No. 1B-62/2006 of the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court, petitions Nos. 1B-64/2006, 1B-65/2006, 1B-66/2006, 1B-67/2006, 1B-68/2006, 1B-71/2006, 1B-72/2006 and 1B-73/2006 of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court were joined into one case and it was given reference No. 32/06-49/06-57/06-58/06-59/06-60/06-61/06-62/06-65/06-66/06-67/06.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

1. A group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003 (hereinafter also referred to as the government resolution No. 937 of 18 July 2003), Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004 (hereinafter also referred to as the government resolution No. 316 of 24 March 2004), Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 (hereinafter also referred to as the government resolution No. 361 of 4 April 2005), and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 (hereinafter also referred to as the government resolution No. 298 of 27 March 2006) are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-31/2006).

2. The Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling, the said court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-54/2006).

3. The Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling, the said court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-62/2006).

4. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling, the said court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-64/2006).

5. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling, the said court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-65/2006).

6. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling, the said court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-66/2006).

7. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling, the said court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-67/2006).

8. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling, the said court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-68/2006).

9. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling, the said court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-71/2006).

10. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling, the said court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-72/2006).

11. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling, the said court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (petition No. 1B-73/2006).

II

The arguments of the petitioners are substantiated by the following arguments.

1. Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code provides that the Government, upon the recommendation of the Tripartite Council of the Republic of Lithuania, shall determine the minimum hourly pay (hereinafter also referred to as the MHP) and the minimum monthly salary (hereinafter also referred to as the MMS) and that, upon the recommendation of the Tripartite Council, the Government may establish different rates of the MHP and the MMS for different branches of economy, regions or groups of employees.

2. Following Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code and taking account of the 10 July 2003 recommendation of the Tripartite Council, by its Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, the Government confirmed that as from 1 September 2003 the MHP shall be LTL 2.67 and the MHP shall be LTL 450 to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts (save the specified exceptions) (Item 1); the MHP shall be LTL 2.55 and the MMS shall be LTL 430 (Item 2) to the employees of agricultural entities, when the income of these entities from sold agricultural production during the previous calendar year comprised more than 50 percent of all income, as well as to employees hired by farmers and to the farmers to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts (Item 2.1); and also to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants (Item 2.2).

Following Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code and taking account of the 2 March 2004 recommendation of the Tripartite Council, by its Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, the Government confirmed that as from 1 May 2004 the MHP shall be LTL 2.95 and the MMS shall be LTL 550 to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts (save the specified exceptions) (Item 1); and the MHP shall be LTL 2.55 and the MMS shall be LTL 430 to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants (Item 2).

Following Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code and taking account of the 25 January 2005 recommendation of the Tripartite Council, by its Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, the Government confirmed that as from 1 July 2005 the MHP shall be LTL 3.28 and the MMS shall be LTL 550 to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts (save the specified exceptions) (Item 1); and the MHP shall be LTL 2.57 and the MMS shall be LTL 430 to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants (Item 2).

Following Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code and taking account of the 20 December 2005 and 28 February 2006 recommendations of the Tripartite Council, by its Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006, the Government confirmed that as from 1 July 2006 the MHP shall be LTL 3.65 and the MMS shall be LTL 600 to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts (save the specified exceptions) (Item 1); and the MHP shall be LTL 2.62 and the MMS shall be LTL 430 to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants (Item 2). Item 2 of the said government resolution amended Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 and it was prescribed that the MHP shall be LTL 3.35 (instead of LTL 3.28) to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts (save the specified exceptions); Item 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 was also amended and the MHP was established as LTL 2.62 (instead of LTL 2.57) to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants; it was established in Item 3 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 that Item 2 of this government resolution shall come into force as from 1 April 2006.

3. The petitioners impugn the compliance of Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 with the Constitution in the aspect that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts; for instance, the MMS confirmed by Items 1.1 and 1.2 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 was correspondingly LTL 430 (Item 1.2) and LTL 600 (Item 1.1), while the MHP was correspondingly LTL 2.62 (Item 1.2) and LTL 3.65 (Item 1.1). According to the petitioners, such differentiation of the MHP and MMS is substantiated by the provision “upon the recommendation of the Tripartite Council, the Government may establish different minimum rates of the hourly pay and the minimum monthly salary for different branches of economy, regions or groups of employees” of Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code, whose compliance with the Constitution is also being impugned in the constitutional justice case at issue.

According to the petitioners, such unequal treatment of persons, to whom the MHP and MMS of different sizes are confirmed, violates the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution whereby all persons shall be equal before the law, the court, and other state institutions and officials, as well as the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof whereby each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and it also violates the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. The said constitutional principle, according to the petitioners, is violated, inter alia, in the aspect that the MHP and MMS were increased only in regard of a certain group of working individuals, i.e. to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, while the said sizes of the minimum remuneration for work (hereinafter also referred to as the MRW) were not applied to the other group of such individuals—state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants—although, according to the petitioners, by its legal acts the state had created a legal expectation that the MHP and MMS would be increased gradually also with respect to the latter individuals.

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, the party concerned, who was Seimas member A. Sysas, and the representatives of the Government, the party concerned, who were A. Bartkevičius, R. Mockus, R. Večkys and V. Žagūnienė, in which it is maintained that the impugned legal acts (parts thereof) are not in conflict with the Constitution.

1. According to A. Sysas, the minimum monthly salary is such minimum remuneration for work which can be paid by the employer for the performed work. Social partners, when bearing in mind the financial specificity of the sector of economy or the region, reach an agreement on a certain MRW, which must be established to a certain group of employers, a certain sector of economy or region. The prohibition on differentiating the MRW in such a manner would limit the right of social partners to a social dialogue.

According to the representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, the amount of remuneration for work of state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants is regulated by individual laws. According to such laws, the smallest minimum positional wage paid to the state servant is LTL 1010, thus, substantially bigger that the minimum monthly salary of the employees who work under employment contracts.

2. According to the representatives of the Government, the party concerned, remuneration for work to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants is established in a different way than that to the persons who work under employment contracts. In the structure of the remuneration for work of state servants the positional salary should be the only invariable value, which would depend on the content of the performed duties and the category of the position of the state servant, while the remaining part of the remuneration for work of a state servant depends, as a rule, on a great many criteria (professionalism, work record, etc.) and is a variable value.

The computation of the size of the positional salary of state servants was directly related with the size of the minimum monthly salary. The Government, while seeking to increase the remuneration for work of only those employees who are remunerated least (i.e. that of the employees who work under employment contracts and who receive the minimum monthly salary), by its resolutions established the MMS of different size to persons, who work under employment contracts, and to state politicians, judges, state officials, and state servants, since laws regulated the establishment of the size of remuneration for work to the persons of these categories in different ways. Under the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials and the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on State Service, the MMS is not paid to state politicians, judges, state officials and state servants; the MMS—LTL 400—established by the Government is not the wage established to them. The size of their wage is determined by the coefficient of the positional salary: the size of the positional salary of state politicians, judges, state officials, and state servants is computed by applying the coefficient of the official salary established in the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials and the Law on State Service, i.e. by multiplying it by the size of the MMS which is established by the Government to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants.

According to the representatives of the Government, the party concerned, when establishing the MHP and MMS to the employees who work under employment contracts and to state politicians, judges, state officials, and state servants, the Government takes account of the financial capabilities of the state.

IV

In the course of the preparation of the case for the judicial investigation, written explanations were received from Z. Balčytis, the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania, R. Kairelis, the State Secretary of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania, P. Koverovas, the State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, A. Čepas, Director of the Law Institute, and T. Davulis, the Head of the Department of Labour Law of the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University.

V

1. At the Constitutional Court’s hearings, the representatives of a group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, who were Seimas members S. Pečeliūnas and R. Šukys, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in the petition of a group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, and also presented additional explanations why, in the opinion of a group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, the impugned legal acts (parts thereof) are in conflict with the Constitution.

2. At the Constitutional Court’s hearings, the representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, who was Seimas member A. Sysas, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in his written explanations and presented additional explanations why, in his opinion, the impugned provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code is in conflict with the Constitution, and also why, in his opinion, in Lithuania the existing system of remuneration for work was established by means of laws and legal acts, the compliance of certain elements of which with the Constitution is impugned in the constitutional justice case at issue.

In addition, the representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, recognised that the system of remuneration for work that has been chosen in Lithuania is not of quality, since it violates the basic principles of justice, since the state servants doing the same job or the job which is less complicated or bearing less responsibility receive bigger remuneration for work in some state institutions if compared to other state institutions. In the opinion of Seimas member A. Sysas, one failed to implement the provisions upon which the system of remuneration for work was based in the course of law-making. Although remuneration for work is increased, this is not done in a systemic manner; for instance, state institutions, while seeking to retain their employees, increase their positional categories, classes, etc. so that they would not go to work in other places (inter alia, in profit seeking enterprises); however, the state institutions in this sphere are virtually competing among themselves; the legal regulation is being corrected, but one has forgotten the very ideas by following which the legal regulation was established.

According to the representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, the choice of the MMS as a certain basis value, under which the remuneration for work is established (calculated) to state politicians, judges, states officials, servicemen and state servants, is deficient; it was clear even at the time when corresponding laws were being drafted, while the problems caused by such choice had been predicted; today such problems are obvious. The size of the remuneration for work of state politicians, judges, states officials, servicemen and state servants should be related not to the MMS, but some other value; it is such linking of the remuneration for work of persons to the MMS (which means that the notion “minimum monthly salary” is used in different meanings) that creates misunderstanding and prompts unreasonable expectations of the employees that their remuneration for work would be increased, though there are no possibilities of doing it.

3. At the Constitutional Court’s hearings the representatives of the Government, the party concerned, who were A. Bartkevičius, R. Mockus, R. Večkys and V. Žvagūnienė, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in their written explanations.

In addition, the representatives of the Government, the party concerned, virtually assented to the critical approach of the representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, as regards the functioning of the system of payment for work; an opinion was expressed, inter alia, that the remuneration for work to state servants, who work in various state institutions, is increased without any clear system, such increase is often supported by “lobbyism” and respective capabilities of the budget of the corresponding state institution.

4. The following specialists took the floor at the Constitutional Court’s hearing of 14 February 2007: I. Blažienė, senior researcher of the Standard of Living Division of the Institute of Labour and Social Research, A. Dobravolskas, the Head of the Department of Economics of the Faculty of Economics and Finance Management of Mykolas Romeris University. and G. Kadziauskas, an expert of the Lithuanian Free Market Institute.

All the specialists who took the floor at the Constitutional Court’s hearing of 14 February 2007 maintained that the minimum monthly salary, which is established by means of government resolutions to the persons employed under employment contracts, the compliance of the legal regulation established wherein with the Constitution is impugned in the constitutional justice case at issue, may not be identified with the MMS applied to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants, since in the case of these persons the MMS is only one element of the computation of the remuneration for work paid to them.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

1. The petitions of the petitioners impugn the compliance of the legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Items 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006, with the Constitution.

2. Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code provides:

The Government, upon the recommendation of the Tripartite Council, shall determine the minimum hourly pay and the minimum monthly salary. Upon the recommendation of the Tripartite Council, the Government may establish different minimum rates of the hourly pay and the minimum monthly salary for different branches of economy, regions or groups of employees.”

3. The Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003 provides:

Pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 64-2569) and taking account of the 10 July 2003 recommendation of the Tripartite Council of the Republic of Lithuania, the Government of the Republic of Lithuania has resolved:

As from 1 September 2003 to confirm the following:

1. the minimum hourly payment shall be LTL 2.67 and the minimum monthly salary shall be LTL 450 to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the minimum monthly salary is applied under procedure established in legal acts, save the exceptions specified in Items 2.1 and 2.2;

2. the minimum hourly payment shall be LTL 2.55 and the minimum monthly salary shall be LTL 430:

2.1. to the employees of agricultural entities, when the income of these entities from sold agricultural production during the previous calendar year comprised more than 50 percent of all income, as well as to employees hired by farmers and to the farmers to whom the minimum monthly salary is applied under procedure established in legal acts;

2.2. to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants.”

4. The Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004 provides:

Pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 64-2569) and taking account of the 2 March 2004 recommendation of the Tripartite Council of the Republic of Lithuania, the Government of the Republic of Lithuania has resolved:

As from 1 May 2004 to confirm the following:

1. the minimum hourly payment shall be LTL 2.95 and the minimum monthly salary shall be LTL 500 to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the minimum monthly salary is applied under procedure established in legal acts, save the persons specified in Item 2;

2. the minimum hourly payment shall be LTL 2.55 and the minimum monthly salary shall be LTL 430 to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants.”

5. It needs to be noted that after the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004 had been adopted and came into effect, the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003 was not abolished; formally, it is still in force at the time of the consideration of the constitutional justice case at issue.

6. The Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 prescribed:

Pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 64-2569) and taking account of the 25 January 2005 recommendation of the Tripartite Council of the Republic of Lithuania, the Government of the Republic of Lithuania has resolved:

As from 1 July 2005 to confirm the following:

1. the minimum hourly payment shall be LTL 3.28 and the minimum monthly salary shall be LTL 550 to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the minimum monthly salary is applied under procedure established in legal acts, save the persons specified in Item 2;

2. the minimum hourly payment shall be LTL 2.57 and the minimum monthly salary shall be LTL 430 to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants.”

7. It needs to be noted that after the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 had been adopted and came into effect, the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004 was not abolished; formally, it is still in force at the time of the consideration of the constitutional justice case at issue.

8. It was established in the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006:

Pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 64-2569) and taking account of the 20 December 2005 and 28 February 2006 recommendations of the Tripartite Council of the Republic of Lithuania, the Government of the Republic of Lithuania has resolved:

1. As from 1 July 2006 to confirm the following:

1.1. the minimum hourly payment shall be LTL 3.65 and the minimum monthly salary shall be LTL 600 to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, save the persons specified in Item 1.2;

1.2. the minimum hourly payment shall be LTL 2.62 and the minimum monthly salary shall be LTL 430 to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants.

2. To amend the Government Resolution (No. 361) ‘On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration’ of 4 April 2005 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2005, No. 45-1444) and to enter the number ‘3.35’ instead of the number ‘3.28’ in Item 1, and to enter the number ‘2.62’ instead of the number ‘2.57’ in Item 2.

3. Item 2 of this Resolution shall come into force as from 1 April 2006.”

9. Thus, from 1 April 2006 till 30 June 2006, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 had to be applied, as they were set forth in the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” in its wording of 27 March 2006.

It needs to be held that the petition requesting an investigation into whether Item 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 should be treated as a petition requesting an investigation into whether Items 1 and 2 (wording of 27 March 2006) of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 were not in conflict with the Constitution.

It also needs to be noted that after one had begun to apply Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 (wording of 27 March 2006) were not abolished; formally, they are still in force at the time of the consideration of the constitutional justice case at issue.

10. On 20 December 2006, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 1301) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 298) ‘On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration’ of 27 March 2006” which provides:

Pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 64-2569) and taking account of the 5 December 2006 recommendation of the Tripartite Council of the Republic of Lithuania, the Government of the Republic of Lithuania has resolved:

To amend the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2006, No. 35-1251) and to set forth Item 1 thereof as follows:

As from 1 January 2007 to confirm LTL 3.66 as the minimum hourly payment and LTL 600 as the minimum monthly salary.”

11. It is clear from the arguments of the petitions of the petitioners that the Constitutional Court is requested to investigate

a) whether:

the provision “the Government may establish different minimum rates of the hourly pay and the minimum monthly salary for different branches of economy, regions or groups of employees” of Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code;

Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003 to the extent that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts;

Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004 to the extent that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts;

Items 1 and 2 (wording of 4 April 2005) of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 to the extent that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts,

are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

b) whether:

Items 1 and 2 (wording of 27 March 2006) of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 to the extent that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts;

Item 1 (wording of 27 March 2006) of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 to the extent that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts,

were not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

II

1. In the constitutional justice case at issue, a group of members of the Seimas, the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioners, impugn the compliance of the legal acts (parts thereof) under which the minimum remuneration for work to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants is computed and paid.

2. The petitioners impugn the compliance (to corresponding extent) of the impugned Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 (wordings of 4 April 2005 and 27 March 2006) of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Item 1 (wording of 27 March 2006) of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 with the Constitution in the aspect that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts; for instance, the MMS confirmed by Items 1.1 and 1.2 of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 was correspondingly LTL 430 (Item 1.2) and LTL 600 (Item 1.1), while the MHP was correspondingly LTL 2.62 (Item 1.2) and LTL 3.65 (Item 1.1). According to the petitioners, such differentiation of the MHP and MMS is substantiated by the provision “upon the recommendation of the Tripartite Council, the Government may establish different minimum rates of the hourly pay and the minimum monthly salary for different branches of economy, regions or groups of employees” of Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code, whose compliance with the Constitution is also being impugned in the constitutional justice case at issue.

According to the petitioners, such unequal treatment of persons, to whom the MHP and MMS of different sizes are confirmed, violates the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution whereby all persons shall be equal before the law, the court, and other state institutions and officials, as well as the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof whereby each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and it also violates the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. The said constitutional principle, according to the petitioners, is violated, inter alia, in the aspect that the MHP and MMS were increased only in regard of a certain group of working individuals, i.e. to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, while the said sizes of the minimum remuneration for work were not applied to the other group of such individuals—state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants—although, according to the petitioners, by its legal acts the state had created a legal expectation that the MHP and MMS would be increased gradually also with respect to the latter individuals.

3. When deciding whether the impugned legal regulation is not in conflict with the Constitution, it needs to be noted that that the minimum hourly pay and the minimum monthly salary, as legal institutes (as well as the minimum remuneration of work, as a legal institute) are not characteristic of Lithuanian law only. These legal institutes (not necessarily under the same names) are established in the legal systems of various states, inter alia, in the law of Member States of the European Union (hereinafter also referred to as the EU), as well as in international legal acts.

It needs to be emphasised that no matter how legal acts refer to the minimum hourly pay and the minimum monthly salary, the per definitionem purpose of these legal institutes is establishment and consolidation (in legal acts) of such minimum remuneration for work (hourly or monthly respectively) of a working person which, when paid periodically, would permit ensuring minimum socially accepted needs of the said person and of the family members who are dependent on him.

4. In this context, it needs to be noted that Part I of the European Social Charter (amended) (hereinafter also referred to as the Charter) (which came into force for Lithuania (with reservations) on 1 August 2001) provides, inter alia, that everyone shall have the opportunity to earn his living in an occupation freely entered upon (Item 1); that all workers have the right to a fair remuneration sufficient for a decent standard of living for themselves and their families (Item 4). Paragraph 1 of Article 4 titled “The right to a fair remuneration” of Part II of the same charter consolidates, inter alia, the following commitments of the states-parties to this Charter: to recognise the right of workers to a remuneration such as will give them and their families a decent standard of living (Item 1); to recognise the right of workers to an increased rate of remuneration for overtime work, subject to exceptions in particular cases (Item 2), while Paragraph 2 provides that the exercise of these rights (as well as other rights specified in Paragraph 1 of this article) shall be achieved by freely concluded collective agreements, by statutory wage-fixing machinery, or by other means appropriate to national conditions.

5. It needs to be mentioned that according to the 22 June 1970 Convention concerning Minimum Wage Fixing, with Special Reference to Developing Countries (No. 131) (which came into force for Lithuania on 26 September 1995) of the International Labour Organisation (hereinafter referred to as the ILO), when the level of minimum wages is determined, one has to take into consideration “the needs of workers and their families, taking into account the general level of wages in the country, the cost of living, social security benefits, and the relative living standards of other social groups”, and “economic factors, including the requirements of economic development, levels of productivity and the desirability of attaining and maintaining a high level of employment” (Article 3). In the 22 June 1970 ILO “Recommendation concerning Minimum Wage Fixing, with Special Reference to Developing Countries” (No. 135) which interprets provisions of the aforesaid ILO convention, provides for the possibility of establishing a system of minimum wages either by fixing a single minimum wage of general application or either by fixing a series of minimum wages applying to particular groups of workers, which need not be incompatible with the fixing of different rates of minimum wages in different regions or zones with a view to allowing for differences in costs of living (Article 5).

6. The aforementioned international legal acts consolidate the principles which the states have committed to follow in establishing the minimum remuneration for work—the minimum hourly pay and/or minimum monthly salary—to hired employees, who can bargain with the employers regarding the size of remuneration for work (and conclude corresponding labour agreements with them). Thus, the MHP and the MMS (as well as the MRW in general) are a legal guarantee so that the hired employee would not be paid any remuneration for work smaller than the MHP and the MMS established by the state.

7. On the other hand, the MHP and the MMS (as well as the MRW in general) are not only the said legal guarantee, but may also be a means of social engineering. In this context, one should bear in mind the fact that, as mentioned before, international legal acts provide for an opportunity to differentiate the minimum remuneration for work in regard to different groups of workers or in view of different regions or zones with a view to allowing for differences in costs of living. Thus, while adopting decisions on the formation and execution of state economic, social or other policy within their competence and while seeking to attain legitimate and universally important objectives, state institutions may regulate corresponding relations and apply law in the manner whereby the MHP and/or MMS with respect to certain groups of persons or certain regions would be smaller or bigger than those established with respect to other groups of persons and/or in view of other regions.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it needs to be noted that in EU member states, as well as in other European states, one follows the principled provision that the established MHP and/or the MMS (as well as the MRW in general) may be differentiated by taking into account various factors—they need not be the same to everyone.

8. In the world, without excepting EU member states, there is not a single universally accepted system of remuneration for work. In various states whose constitutions consolidate corresponding social commitments of the state, various systems of remuneration for work have been chosen, inter alia, such where the MHP and the MMS are established by taking account of the average remuneration for work (ARW) in that country.

One follows the provision that the state not only can choose a system of payment for work, but also that in the same state various systems of payment for work with regard to various groups of employees may be established. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it should especially be emphasised that it is recognised that the legal regulation of the relations of remuneration for work may be different in whether corresponding employees work under labour (employment) contracts or whether they are state servants; it is also recognised that different sizes of the MRW (MHP, MMS) may be established with respect to the employees who work under labour (employment) contracts and state servants.

9. In this context, it needs to be noted that Article 39 (ex Article 48) of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (hereinafter also referred to as the Treaty), which defines freedom of movement for workers, inter alia, stipulates that such freedom shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the member states as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment (Paragraph 2), and also that such freedom shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, to accept offers of employment actually made, to move freely within the territory of member states for this purpose, to stay in a member state for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that state laid down by law, regulation or administrative action, to remain in the territory of a member state after having been employed in that state, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the European Commission (Paragraph 3). Alongside, it needs to be emphasised that, according to Paragraph 4 of the said article, the provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service.

Thus, the Treaty consolidates the principled provision that there is an essential difference between the employees who work under labour (employment) contracts and the persons who work in state service, i.e. who are state servants of EU member states.

This principled provision is also followed in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (the 12 February 1974 judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the case Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v. Deutsche Bundespost (arrêt de la Cour du 12 février 1974, Giovanni Maria Sotgiu / Deutsche Bundespost, affaire 152/73, Rec. p. 153); the 3 June 1986 judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the case Commission of the European Communities v. the French Republic (arrêt de la Cour du 3 juin 1986, Commission des Communautés européennes / République française, affaire 307/84, Rec. p. 1725); the 3 July 1986 judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the case Deborah Lawrie-Blum v. Land Baden-Württemberg (arrêt de la Cour du 3 juillet 1986, Deborah Lawrie-Blum / Land Baden-Württemberg, affaire 66/85, Rec. p. 2121); the 31 May 2001 judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the case Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (arrêt de la Cour (cinquième chambre) du 31 mai 2001, Commission des Communautés européennes / République italienne, affaire C-283/99, Rec. p. I-4363)).

III

1. While deciding whether the impugned legal regulation is not in conflict with the Constitution, it is necessary to ascertain what content of the minimum hourly pay and the minimum monthly salary as legal institutes (as well as that of the minimum remuneration for work as a legal institute) and that of corresponding notions and their purpose have been consolidated in the impugned legal acts, as well as in other legal acts which regulate close relations, and whether the purpose of the MHP and the MMS established in legal acts underwent any changes, and if it did, then what these changes were.

2. After the independent State of Lithuania was restored on 11 March 1990 and after one began to create an authentic Lithuanian national legal system, at the very beginning of the creation of this system the legal regulation of the relations of state service (which is also synonymously called public service) was and is grounded on the principled provision that in their nature and content the relations of state service are virtually different from the relations which appear between the employees who work under labour (employment) contracts and the employers (although, there are certain similarities between such relations). This principled provision is virtually analogous to the principled provision entrenched in EU law (which has been discussed in this ruling of the Constitutional Court) that there is an essential difference between the employees who work under labour (employment) contracts and the persons who work in state service, i.e. who are state servants of EU member states.

3. In its ruling of 13 December 2004, the Constitutional Court held that no single, universally recognised concept of the state service exists in the scientific literature on law, political sciences or public administration, also, that this concept differs in various states as well; in addition, at various phases of the legal development of the state, such concept used to be a varied one even in the same state. In the same ruling of the Constitutional Court it was held that the reforms of state service and public administration which were carried out in Lithuania reflect the dynamics of the concept of state service, also that the legislature enjoys broad discretion to choose and consolidate in laws a certain model of organisation of the state service.

The essential feature of the concept of state service which was followed by regulating corresponding relations by means of legal acts and which was later consolidated in the Constitution adopted by the Nation in referendum on 25 October 1992 is that state service is understood as service to the State of Lithuania and the civil Nation, i.e. as a system of the relations between the state and the persons who are commissioned (entrusted) with discharging certain state functions in ensuring execution of public administration and rendition of public services so that the public interest of the entire state community—the civil Nation—could be guaranteed. The state exercises its functions through the system of respective establishments, which comprise, first of all, state institutions (the state may exercise its functions to a certain extent through other establishments (other than state institutions), which are assigned (entrusted) according to the laws with exercising particular state functions or which participate in exercising state functions in particular forms and manners defined in the laws). Public administration is executed and/or public services are rendered through the people who work in these institutions and who adopt corresponding decisions. The persons employed at the institutions, through which state functions are implemented (save the state officials who discharge the functions in implementing state power, as well as save members of municipal councils), comprise a corps of state servants—state service is a professional activity of these persons, related to guaranteeing the public interest: in the course of execution of public administration and/or rendition of public services decisions are adopted by professional state servants (or they participate in drafting, execution, coordinating such decisions and/or in controlling the execution of such decisions etc.); the concept of state service as professional activity also implies the requirement of its qualification. The said purpose of state service (precisely to guarantee the public interest) determines a special procedure of forming the corps of state servants and the specific character of their legal status, as well as their special responsibility to society for the execution of the functions assigned to them (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 December 2004).

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it needs to be noted that such concept of state service implies that professional activity of state servants should be remunerated from the state (municipal) budget. On the other hand, such a concept of state service does not create any preconditions for treating in legal acts all persons, who are employed at state or municipal institutions and whose activity is remunerated from the state (municipal) budget, as state servants only on the basis of the fact that they are employed at the aforementioned institutions or that their activity is remunerated from the state (municipal) budget: It is the persons employed at the state or municipal institutions and who adopt decisions while exercising public administration and/or providing public services (or participate in drafting and executing such decisions, coordinating and/or controlling the execution thereof, etc.) who should be considered state servants. The activity, when persons participate in exercising state (or municipal) functions while not being employed at state or municipal institutions, may not be regarded as state service, either (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 December 2004).

It needs to be specially emphasised that the discussed concept of state service treats the legal relations of state service as legal relations between the state servant and the state, while the latter with respect to the servant is in the role of the employer; on the other hand, the legal relations of state service, regardless of certain similarities, are not identical with employment (labour) relations which appear between the employee who is not a state servant and the employer (it is of no importance whether the latter relations appear in state or municipal institutions or in other enterprises, establishments and organisations).

4. After the independent State of Lithuania was restored, it was impossible to create a system of state service at once. This process was taking place in parallel to the reform of the entire legal system; the creation of state service and correction (improvement) of adopted legislative decisions virtually were one of constituent parts of the process of creation and improvement of the Lithuanian national legal system. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it needs to be noted that creation of a system of state service, whose inseparable part was the system of remuneration for work to state servants, was begun still prior to the adoption and entry into effect of the Constitution.

Therefore, it is not accidental that at the very beginning of the creation of the system of state service and passage of legal acts, which were designed for regulation of corresponding relations, especially during first several years after the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania (let alone prior to the adoption and entry into effect of the Constitution), legal acts used to employ uncoordinated formulations, the same legal institutes were named by different notions (terms), and, sometimes, by means of the same notion (term) different legal institutes used to be named. For example, at the beginning of the discussed period some legal acts used to employ the notion “servant” (which sometimes virtually reflected the discussed concept of state service, while sometimes it had a wider meaning and it was related not only with the professional activity in guaranteeing the public interest), while some legal acts used to employ the notion “state servant”, however, the notion “state servant” was not defined in laws. In parallel one also used to employ the notions “specialist”, “head”, “head of subunit” etc. as well as various combinations of these notions. Later, legal acts began to use also the notion “functionary”; still later, the notion “functionary” was abandoned; after the laws had defined as to what persons were state servants, this category of persons was initially treated in a very broad manner, while later it was substantially narrowed. It should also be mentioned that for quite a long time, especially during the first several years after the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania (let alone prior to the adoption and entry into force of the Constitution), certain relations linked with state service were regulated by means of government resolutions (as well as by other substatutory acts), although, it is impossible to assert a priori that in laws there used to be always the necessary basis, since often laws would not contain any corresponding explicit provisions.

The legal regulation of relations of state service (especially the regulation established in substatutory legal acts) used to be rather fragmentary for quite a while: respective legal acts (their provisions) were designated for regulation of the relations of payment for work of the employees of only certain (often concretely pointed out) state institutions (or of subunits providing service to them); after legal acts had established certain legal regulation designated for certain groups of state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in such legal acts), the analogous relations (inter alia, those linked with payment for work), whose subjects were persons classed as belonging to other groups of state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in such legal acts), stayed unregulated or were regulated in a different manner. Besides, the legal regulation of state service relations used to be changed very often.

5. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it needs to be emphasised that almost everything mentioned above can be said as regards the relations of payment for work of state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in such legal acts), inter alia, the relations linked with establishment of the size of remuneration for work of state servants.

6. Due to abundance of the legal acts designated for regulation of the relations of payment for work of state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in such legal acts), their especially frequent change and intensity of the legal regulation, in this ruling of the Constitutional Court it is not necessary to disclose (let alone quote) all the legal regulation established in the corresponding legal acts, inter alia, multiple amendments and amendments of amendments of various provisions.

Taking account of the fact how the said substatutory acts (as well as other legal acts linked with them and not analysed herein) were issued prior to the adoption of the Constitution by the Nation in the 25 October 1992 and its entry into effect on 2 November 1992, as well as of the fact that such legal facts themselves are not impugned in the constitutional justice case at issue, and of the fact that the great majority of them are no longer applied, the legal regulation established in them will be analysed in this ruling of the Constitutional Court insofar as in such an analysis is necessary to reveal the content of the minimum hourly pay and the minimum monthly salary and the purpose of the MHP and the MMS, which during the corresponding period were consolidated in legal acts regulating the relations of remuneration for work, as well as the changes (tendencies in the changes) and peculiarities of the MHP and the MMS so that it would be possible to investigate, subsequent to the petitions of a group of members of the Seimas, the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioners, whether the impugned legal acts (parts thereof) under which remuneration for work is computed and paid to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants.

7. It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the concept of state service which was followed by regulating corresponding relations by means of legal acts and which was later consolidated in the Constitution adopted by the Nation in referendum on 25 October 1992 includes the principled provision that in their nature and content the relations of state service are virtually different from the relations which appear between the employees who work under labour (employment) contracts and corresponding employers, regardless of the fact that there are certain similarities between such relations.

Thus, the legal regulation of the relations of remuneration for work, inter alia, the establishment of the minimum remuneration for work, may differ in whether it is regulation of the relations between hired employees (i.e. those who work under employment contracts) and employers (even when the employer of such hired employees is the state), or whether it is regulation of the relations of state service.

It needs to be emphasised that at the very beginning of the creation of the system of state service (and later, when one had to correct corresponding legislative decisions) the legal regulation of the relations of state servants was turned to precisely that direction: one was following the provision that the specificity of state service as a professional activity determines not only an opportunity, but sometimes also a necessity to legally regulate the legal relations of payment for work to state servants differently than the relations of payment for work of other persons (inter alia, other employees of institutions, which are funded from the budget of the state (or a municipality). In addition, differentiated legal regulation of the legal relations of remuneration for work to state servants was established in regard of different groups of state servants.

It also needs to be emphasised that in itself the said orientation to differentiated legal regulation of the legal relations of remuneration for work does not imply any discriminatory provisions, nor any provisions related with granting any privileges.

8. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it needs to be noted that the said opportunity to legally regulate the legal relations of payment for work to state servants differently from the legal relations of payment for work of other persons is applicable mutatis mutandis also to the legal regulation of the relations of payment for work of state politicians, judges, state officials (not all of whom are treated as state servants by legal acts), and servicemen.

9. Upon restoration of the independent State of Lithuania, the Code of Labour Laws of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 1 June 1972 with subsequent amendments and supplements; hereinafter referred to as the CLL) was in force for some time, which used to regulate, inter alia, the relations of payment for work. It used to employ the notion “servant”, however, someone’s being in the capacity of a servant used to be related not only with state service, but also with work namely in state institutions or other institutions funded from the budget: heads of enterprises, establishments and organisations and specialists thereof (finance, accounting, book-keeping employees, as well as lawyers), who were discharging duties of administrative-economic type and who were not categorised as engineering and technical employees, as well as technical executives, were regarded as servants; thus, the notion “servants” included also the officials who discharged the functions in implementing state (legislative, executive, judicial) power. The CLL did not consolidate the notion “state servant”.

Under Article 90 of the CLL (wording of 1 June 1970), the monthly remuneration for work of a worker or servant could not be less than the “minimum established by the state”. The CLL did not contain any provisions permitting the establishment of different MRW in regard of certain groups of employees (inter alia, servants). Under Paragraph 1 (wording of 1 June 1972) of Article 90 (wording of 30 March 1988) of the CLL, the work of servants had to be remunerated on the grounds of centrally approved schemes of positional salaries.

In the absence of the necessary legal regulation established by institutions of the State of Lithuania, for some time one was following the schemes of official salaries approved by Soviet power institutions, which either used to establish salaries of a fixed size to servants, or the minimum and maximum salary used to be established for each office; the latter case used to be more prevalent.

According to the Soviet power legal acts which were adopted prior to the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania and which used to be applied for some time, the wage of workers and servants for one month of work could not be less than 70 roubles.

10. During the first months after the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania, a great many of substatutory legal acts—resolutions of the Presidium of the Supreme Council, resolutions of the Government—were passed (sometimes in the course of implementation of explicit provisions of laws), whereby various state institutions (as well as subunits rendering services to the state institutions) were established, inter alia, the structure and personnel of these institutions used to be established, while sometimes the same and other substatutory legal acts used to establish official wages (sometimes salaries of a fixed size, but more frequently, minimum and maximum monthly salaries) of employees (inter alia, the heads) of the newly established and other (concretely specified) institutions, as well as additional pay supplementing the official wages and other conditions of payment for work. In addition, substatutory legal acts used to be adopted, which regulated the relations of payment for work of employees (inter alia, the heads) of certain enterprises. These substatutory legal acts (as well as the CLL) did not employ the notion “state servant”; only some of them used to employ the notion “servant”: by servants one understood the persons who worked in a corresponding enterprise funded from the budget, however, alongside the notions “employee in charge” and “specialist” were also used.

These substatutory legal acts either used to establish (sometimes, on a temporary basis) salaries of a fixed size to state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in such legal acts), heads of institutions (or of subunits giving service to such institutions), state officials, other employees of institutions funded from the budget, or (more often) the minimum and maximum salary for each office; thus, an opportunity was consolidated to pay extra pay and additional pay to them, by taking account of the work record, rank, qualification, and other criteria specified in legal acts.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it also needs to be mentioned that the substatutory legal acts passed already at that time differentiated the positional salaries of servants (as, for example, employees of state insurance establishments, employees in charge and specialists of territorial prosecutor’s offices of the Republic of Lithuania) according to regions.

11. One was gradually moving from such fragmentary legal regulation of the relations of payment for work of employees (inter alia, servants, heads, officials) of institutions (establishments, organisations) funded from the budget to a more systemic regulation. In this context, it is worth mentioning the Government Resolution (No. 283) “On Improving Payment for Work of Employees of the Institutions and Organisations Which are Funded from the Budget” which confirmed the official wages (minimum and maximum salaries) of employees (inter alia, servants, heads, officials) of the establishments and organisations funded from the budget (Item 1), as well as rate-based pay for workers of the establishments and organisations funded from the budget (Item 2). Under Item 8 of the same government resolution, heads of the establishments and organisations were permitted to establish extra pay to “servants, specialists and workers” (in case there were specified grounds), while Item 2 thereof provided for an opportunity to ministries and various state services to apply differentiated schemes of official wages (according to the type and amount of work of the establishments and organisations, the work record of employees, their education and qualification) in the establishments and organisations which used to be within their sphere of regulation.

This government resolution did not regulate the remuneration for work of “employees in charge of state power and governance bodies, of establishments and organisations of credit and state insurance, prosecutor’s office, judicial and notary ones, those of science and scientific research, trading, public catering and material-technical supply, as well as employees in charge and professors and teachers of schools of higher learning and of establishments equated to them according to remuneration for work” (Item 1).

12. On 27 September 1990, the Supreme Council adopted the Law on Individual Income Security, which came into force on 4 October 1990. The preamble to the said law indicated the purpose of the law: “This law shall establish the principles of supporting individual income taking into account minimum standard of living and the dynamics of prices. <…>”

Paragraph 3 of Article 1 (wording of 27 September 1990 as well as wordings of 3 November 1994 and 1 July 2003) of the Law on Individual Income Security defines the notion “minimum standard of living”: “minimum standard of living (MSL) means the sum of monthly earnings of a family per capita per month and guaranteeing to all its members socially acceptable minimal level of needs corresponding to the physiologically acceptable norms of nutrition as well as needs in clothing, footwear, furniture household and sanitary commodities, needs in housing, public utilities, transportation, communication services, and services in culture and education”. Chapter II titled “Minimum Standard of Living and Indexation of Income” of the same law provides, inter alia, that minimum standard of living shall be approved by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania on the recommendation of the Government at least once every five years (Paragraph 1 of Article 2); that the indexation base shall be the summary retail price index which is computed and made available to the public at least every three months by the Department of Statistics under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (Article 3); that the minimum standard of living shall be indexed at the same frequency as the Department of Statistics shall compute and make available to the public the index of retail prices but no less frequently than once a year and that the minimum standard of living is indexed by the Ministry of Social Security (Article 4). It needs to be noted that articles (paragraphs thereof) of Chapter II of the Law on Individual Income Security have not been amended.

The notion “payment for work” (used for the indexation of income) was (and is) defined in Paragraph 1 of Article 1 (wording of 27 September 1990 as well as wordings of 3 November 1994 and 1 July 2003) of the Law on Individual Income Security as “remuneration for work by time and by piece as well as positional salaries”, while Paragraph 2 of Article 2 provides that “minimum payment for work and minimum pensions shall be established by separate laws”. Under Article 5 of the same law, minimum payment for work shall be indexed in the same manner as the minimum standard of living, while “remuneration for work shall be indexed at all enterprises seeking profit if it is provided for in labour or collective (employment) contracts.”

13. Thus, according to the CLL and the Law on Individual Income Security, at that time the remuneration for work of employees (inter alia, servants, heads and officials) of institutions funded from the budget could not be less than the “minimum established by the state”, which had to be established by separate laws. However, actually the remuneration for work of the said employees was established by various substatutory legal acts, under which the remuneration for work was of a fixed size or could not overstep the established limits of the minimum and maximum monthly salary (besides, an opportunity was consolidated to pay extra pay and additional pay for these employees (by taking account of the criteria specified in legal acts)). In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it needs to be emphasised that the limits of neither the fixed monthly salary, nor minimum monthly salary, were directly related with the guarantee of the 70-rouble minimum remuneration for work to workers and servants, which was applied at that time (and established prior to the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania), however, such limits were not smaller than this size.

14. After the Law on Individual Income Security had come into force, legal acts designed for regulation of payment for work of employees of only particular state institutions (inter alia, servants, heads, officials) continued to appear; this legal regulation of payment for work sometimes was established be means of laws (as, for example, with regard to officers and re-enlistees of the system of national defence, police officials, towns’ and districts’ regular employees of national defence volunteer service and its headquarters), in other cases—by substatutory legal acts (as, for instance, for judges of the Republic of Lithuania, state notaries, controllers of supervision of prisons, closed remand prisons and correctional labour colonies). The minimum and maximum salary for each office, and, more rarely, salaries of a fixed size, used to be established; in addition, an opportunity was consolidated to pay extra pay and additional pay for corresponding employees (by taking account of the criteria specified in legal acts). Neither the limits of the said fixed monthly salary, nor of the minimum monthly salary, were smaller than the guarantee of the 70-rouble minimum remuneration for work to workers and servants, however, they were not directly related to it. In addition, the remuneration of judges and state notaries were differentiated according to regions as well.

15. On 9 January 1991, the Supreme Council adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Payment for Work which came into force on 1 February 1991. It was established in the preamble to this law that it shall regulate the payment for work of employees who work under labour (employment) contracts in enterprises, establishments, and organisations, regardless of their forms of property.

Article 3 of the Law on Payment for Work used to prescribe, inter alia, that conditions of payment for work, tariff-qualification requirements of professions and positions, and the procedure for fixing wage rates for jobs and employees shall be established by the owners (employers) of the enterprises, establishments, and organisations in collective agreements (collective contracts); concrete hourly rate-based pay and monthly salaries shall be established in collective agreements or, if they are not concluded, in employment contracts according to the procedure established by the laws of the Republic of Lithuania; Article 2 thereof used to prescribe that the state shall establish a minimum hourly pay (minimum monthly salary) (Paragraph 1) and that an employee’s hourly (monthly) remuneration for work may not be less than the minimum hourly pay (monthly salary) established by law (Paragraph 2); while Article 5 thereof used to provide that, taking into account the price index, the minimum remuneration for work shall be indexed according to the procedure established by the Law on Individual Income Security.

Under Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law on Payment for Work, the conditions of payment for work to state servants had to be established by law. The conditions of payment for work to employees of establishments financed from the budget had to be established by the Government; these conditions had to be revised at least once a year, taking into account the raise in remuneration for work of employees in material production (Paragraph 2 of Article 4). In this context, it needs to be mentioned that the content of the notion “state servant” was not defined either in this law, or other laws effective at that time (although this notion was employed in the Law on Payment for Work).

Thus, the Law on Payment for Work distinguished between the relations of payment for work to employees of state establishments and employees of establishments financed from the budget, which were not regulated by this law, and the relations of payment for work for employees, who worked in enterprises, establishments and organisations regardless of their forms of property, under labour (employment) contracts; precisely for the regulation of the latter relations the said law was designed.

It also needs to be mentioned that upon the entry into force of the Law on Payment for Work, formerly passed substatutory legal acts which regulated the relations of payment for work of employees certain state institutions (inter alia, servants, heads and officials) remained valid and continued to be applied.

16. Under Item 2 of the Resolution of the Supreme Council (No. I-925) “On the Entry into Force of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Payment for Work” of 9 January 1991, it was the Government that had to establish the minimum hourly pay (minimum monthly salary), by taking account of the approved minimum living standard, while by Item 3 the Government was commissioned, inter alia, to abolish and amend the substatutory legal acts which were not in compliance with the Law on Payment for Work until 1 February 1991.

17. It needs to be noted that it is impossible to construe the legal regulation established in either the Law on Payment for Work or the Resolution of the Supreme Council (No. I-925) “On the Entry into Force of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Payment for Work” of 9 January 1991 that, purportedly, they created preconditions for establishing different minimum remuneration for work (MHP and MMS) for certain groups of employees; it has been mentioned that the CLL did not contain any such provisions, either. Thus, subjects of law-making, when they regulated the relations of payment for work by means of legal acts, were bound by the principled provision that the MRW (MHP and MMS) must be the same to all groups of employees; the remuneration for work to employees (inter alia, servants, heads and officials) financed from the budget could not be smaller than the MRW approved to all working individuals.

18. As from 11 March 1990, when the independent State of Lithuania was restored, the first legal act of the Government by which new minimum hourly pay and a new minimum monthly salary of fixed sizes were established was the Government Resolution (No. 45) “On Establishing the Minimum Remuneration for Work” of 31 January 1991. By the said resolution, the Government resolved to establish the MHP (60 copecks) and the MMS (100 roubles) as of 1 February 1991 (i.e. as of the day when the Law on Payment for Work had to come into force) (Item 1), it also recognised many legal acts passed by the Soviet government institutions, which used to regulated, inter alia, the relations of payment for work, as no longer valid (Item 2).

Later, the Government would increase the said sizes by its resolutions more than once (as a rule, retroactively).

Taking account of the fact that the laws and other legal acts valid at that time did not create any pre-conditions for establishing different MRW (MHP and MMS) for certain groups of employees, it should be held that one had to heed the MHP and MMS established by the Government not only in the course of concluding labour (employment) contracts with employees, who worked under labour (employment) contracts in enterprises, establishments and organisations, regardless of their form of property, whose relations of payment for work was regulated by the Law on Payment for Work, and in the course of establishing the remuneration for work of these employees, but also in the course of establishment of the remuneration for work of employees of other establishments financed from the budget, whose relations of payment for work were not regulated by the Law on Payment for Work in detail.

19. The remuneration for work of state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in legal acts), as well as that of other employees of institutions (establishments, organisations) financed form the budget continued to be established by substatutory legal acts as well.

19.1. For instance, the Government Resolution (No. 74) “On Increasing the Minimum Remuneration for Work to Employees of the Establishments and Organisations Financed from the Budget” of 22 February 1991 confirmed the official salaries of employees of the establishments and organisations financed from the budget (save those of heads of the Government (i.e. the Prime Minister and his deputies) and its apparatus, heads of ministries, departments and state services, the systems of the prosecutor’s office, of judges and notaries, customs, the interior and national defence), by consolidating the minimum and maximum sizes of the monthly salary, and establishing a fixed size of the official salary to certain positions, and confirmed rate-based pay (according to corresponding annexes designed for the official salaries of employees of the establishments and organisations financed from the budget, professors and teachers of schools of higher learning, heads of schools of higher learning, employees of scientific institutes and other establishments, “employees of ministries, municipalities of higher rank and other state services”, “heads of government bodies of higher rank municipalities” etc.) (Item 1). These official salaries had to be applied as from 1 March 1991. It needs to be noted that by this resolution the Government established not only the official salaries of employees of the so-called “other establishments financed from the budget” (as established in Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Payment for Work), but also the official salaries of various state servants (which are referred to by the said government resolution as “servants”, “heads”, “specialists”).

The list of the positions specified in the Government Resolution (No. 74) “On Increasing the Minimum Remuneration for Work to Employees of the Establishments and Organisations Financed from the Budget” of 22 February 1991, whose official salaries were not established by this government resolution, used to be narrowed by subsequent government resolutions.

It needs to be emphasised that the minimum sizes of the monthly official salaries (regardless of whether the salary of a fixed size or the minimum and maximum salaries) established to all employees of state institutions, inter alia, servants, heads, specialists, whose remuneration for work was established by the said government resolution (including subsequent amendments and supplements) not only were not smaller than the MMS established by the Government at the respective period (and to which the said official salaries were not related), but, as a rule, they used rather to exceed it (in addition, it was permitted to pay also extra pay, and, in separate cases, additional pay, to these servants, heads and specialists, and to give bonuses to them).

Thus, the Government, when establishing the minimal monthly official salaries (tariff pay) of corresponding employees (inter alia, servants, heads, specialists), was guided by the MMS sizes which it had itself established (established for the first time by Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 45) “On Establishing the Minimum Remuneration for Work” of 31 January 1991); one was following the provision that the minimal monthly official salaries established to employees of state establishments (inter alia, servants, heads, specialists), as well as employees of other establishments financed from the budget, whose relations of remuneration for work were not regulated by the Law on Payment for Work, could not be smaller than the MMS applied to the employees working under labour (employment) contracts in enterprises, establishments and organisations, regardless of their forms of property.

19.2. It needs to be noted that this provision was followed also when the remuneration for work of state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in such legal acts) as well as employees of other establishments financed from the budget was established by other substatutory acts—government resolutions (as, for instance, the Government Resolution (No. 270) “On Confirming Official Salaries (Tariff Pay) to Employees of Cultural and Educational Establishments and Organisations” of 9 July 1991 and the Government Resolution (No. 276) “On Official Salaries of Employees of Medical Establishments” of 12 July 1991), as well as resolutions of the Presidium of the Supreme Council and Government ordinances (these substatutory legal acts are not analysed in detail in this ruling of the Constitutional Court). This provision was also followed when the relations of payment for work of heads of enterprises, heads and employees of subunits of enterprises, as well as heads of state and state joint-stock enterprises were regulated by individual government resolutions.

19.3. Besides, some substatutory legal acts of that period, which regulated the relations of payment for work of state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in such legal acts), established an opportunity to differentiate official salaries, inter alia, according to regions.

20. Summing up, it needs to be held that in the period discussed:

when the remuneration for work to employees working under labour (employment) contracts was established by means of substatutory legal acts, the MMS (or the MHP) established by the Government had to be directly applied;

when the remuneration for work of state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in such legal acts) as well as other employees of institutions (establishments, organisations) financed from the budget was established one had to directly apply the other legal acts whereby the minimum of the remuneration for work of these persons was oriented to the MMS established by the Government (although explicitly such relation would not be pointed out).

21. It needs to be held that due to such legal regulation there occurred an expectation to employees—those who worked under labour (employment) contracts, as well as state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in such legal acts), and other employees of institutions (establishments, organisations) financed from the budget—that their monthly remuneration for work would not be smaller than the MMS which was established by the Government during the corresponding period.

22. The role of the MMS as a legal institute acquired new features upon the entry into force of the Government Resolution (No. 483) “On Payment for Work of Scientific Workers and Pedagogues of Institutions of Science and Studies” of 23 November 1991 and 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 (on the basis of these government resolutions, other substatutory legal acts used to be amended); besides, these government resolutions themselves were amended and/or supplemented more than once, inter alia, by stipulating that the temporary experimental procedure for remuneration for work of army officers, non-commissioned officers and privates of the systems of national defence and interior troops of the Republic of Lithuania is no longer temporary (the Government Resolution (No. 295) “On the Indexation of Remuneration, Pensions and Other Payments” of 27 April 1992).

When the application of these government resolutions (and other substatutory legal acts related therewith) began, the MMS established by the Government was already not only the guarantee that an employee would not be paid remuneration for work smaller than the MMS established by the state, but it also became one of the elements according to which the remuneration for work of certain employees used to be established (computed).

For example, Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 483) “On Payment for Work of Scientific Workers and Pedagogues of Institutions of Science and Studies” of 23 November 1991 confirmed the system of classification of positions and remuneration for work of scientific workers and pedagogues of institutions of science and studies (according to the annex), which as of 1 December 1991 was applicable to the positions in institutions of science and studies paid from state subsidies, while Item 2 thereof prescribed that the monthly official salary of a scientific or education assistant was equalled to the minimum monthly salary established by the Law on Individual Income Security (the said government resolution refers to this law as the “Law on Income Security”) indexed by the coefficient 2.4, while the hourly pay for educational work was equalled to the minimum monthly salary indexed by the coefficient 0.05; the annex of the same government resolution—the System of Classification of and Payment for the Offices of Scientific Workers and Pedagogues of Institutions of Science and Studies—established coefficients (in comparison with the official salary of an assistant) of payment and additional pay for professors, assistant professors and other scientific workers and pedagogues of institutions of science and studies, as well as additional pay to professors, teachers and other scientific workers, who are elected or appointed to supervisory positions. By Item 1 of 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 it was resolved “on a temporary basis, from 1 December 1991 till 1 May 1992, to regulate the payment for work of the heads and other officials of state bodies that discharge the functions of state governance and of law and order, which are provided for in normative acts and regulations (instructions), by means of coefficients the basis of which shall be <…> the (indexed) minimum monthly salary confirmed by the Government”, while by Item 2 one confirmed the official salaries and additional pay of “the heads and other officials of state bodies”, which are drafted by following the principle specified in Item 1 of this government resolution: official salaries of the governing body of the Government and of the heads and other officials of its apparatus (according to a separate annex) (Item 2.1); official salaries of the heads and other officials of ministries, departments, and state services (according to a separate annex) (Item 2.2); official salaries of the heads and other officials of municipalities (according to a separate annex) (Item 2.3); official salaries of top members of staff and other officials of the prosecutor’s office (according to a separate annex) (Item 2.4); official salaries of judges and their additional pay for qualification classes (according to a separate annex) (Item 2.5); official salaries of state arbiters in state arbitration (according to a separate annex) (Item 2.6); official salaries of state notaries (according to a separate annex) (Item 2.7); official salaries and additional pay of the heads and other officials of the interior and police establishments (according to a separate annex) (Item 2.8); official salaries of the heads and other officials of the Security Division of the Supreme Council (according to a separate annex) (Item 2.9); additional pay for qualification categories to official salaries of officials of the Security Division of the Supreme Council and officials of the customs system, who work in customs-houses (according to a separate annex) (Item 2.10); additional pay supplementing the official salaries of officials of the system of the interior and national defence, who serve in military service, and additional pay supplementing the official salaries of police officials for the years served in the army or the police (according to a separate annex) (Item 2.11); wages of officials of the systems of the interior and national defence, who serve in military service, depending on the military or interior service rank (according to a separate annex) (Item 2.12); other additional pay supplementing the official salary of certain employees were also established and an opportunity was provided to establish additional pay for employees and to give bonuses to them.

Upon consolidation of the principle that the payment for work of corresponding employees (officials, servants) is regulated by means of coefficients whose basis is the (indexed) MMS confirmed by the Government, the MMS established by the Government continued to be one of the guarantees that employees would not be paid remuneration for work, which could be less than the MMS established by the state. As before, when the payment for work of employees, who worked under labour (employment) contracts, were established by substatutory legal acts, the MMS (and the MHP) established by the Government had to be applied directly, while in the course of establishment of the remuneration for work of state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in legal acts) and that of other employees of institutions (establishments, organisations) financed from the budget, the MMS established by the Government used to be the directing mark, according to which corresponding law-making subjects used to guide themselves. Thus, state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in legal acts), as well as other employees of institutions (establishments, organisations) financed from the budget, continued to have the expectation that that their monthly remuneration for work would not be smaller than the MMS which was established by the Government during the corresponding period.

23. It needs to be mentioned that on 11 January 1992 the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 20) “On the Temporary Suspension of Decisions of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on Issues of Remuneration for Work of the Heads and Other Officials of State Power, State Governance and Bodies of Law and Order” whereby it was resolved temporarily to suspend, from 1 December 1992 till 1 May 1992, the decisions of the Government “on issues of remuneration for work of the heads and other officials of state bodies that discharge the functions of state power, state governance and law and order (according to the attached list)”. All in all, one suspended: the validity of one government resolution; the validity of individual provisions (sometimes constituting the greater part of the legal regulation of the respective government resolution) of eleven government resolutions; the validity of one Government ordinance. The said suspension of the validity of the legal acts (parts thereof) was made retroactively.

24. When the legal regulation of the relations of payment for work is assessed, it should be noted that it was not stable and was often changed. The provisions of substatutory legal acts frequently were formulated by not defining precisely as to which provisions of former legal acts were amended or annulled, and which were to remain in force and continued to be applied. There existed a rather widespread practice where the validity of legal acts used to be temporarily suspended (by defining not always explicitly to what extent they were suspended), however, this temporarily suspended legal regulation used to be corrected by other legal acts, which used to be passed later. One also used to establish competing legal regulation, where the same legal relations were regulated in a different manner by two or more legal acts (some of them issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council, while other legal acts were issued by the Government). It used to be customary to give the retroactive force to the established legal regulation, also that some legal acts used to be applied before their official publishing and, sometimes, without their publishing at all. Besides, one used to pay little heed to universally recognised requirements of the technique of lawmaking; for instance, one used to employ close notions in parallel, however, such notions would not be defined precisely and, due to this, the legal regulation used to become ambiguous, unclear, confusing, and in some places almost incomprehensible.

The content of such legal regulation becomes clear only when account is taken of its application, i.e. of the fact what general practice of the application or respective norms was formed by the institutions that applied law. On the other hand, such legal regulation created preconditions for applying the corresponding provisions differently.

In this context one also has to remind the fact that, as mentioned before, under the Law on Payment for Work, the conditions of payment for work to state servants had to be established by law; the conditions of payment for work to employees of establishments financed from the budget had to be established by the Government. However, it is obvious that during the discussed period the conditions of most state servants were established by substatutory legal acts—government resolutions and resolutions of the Presidium of the Supreme Council.

25. The role of the MMS, as a legal institute, acquired still new features when the Government Resolution (No. 129) “On the Indexation of Remuneration for Work, Pensions and Other Payments” of 26 February 1992 had come into force. The sizes of the MHP and the MMS established by Item 2.2 of this government resolution were 5.31 roubles and 910 roubles respectively (they had to be applied as from 1 February 1992, thus, retroactively).

Until then, the legal regulation of the relations of payment for work had been based on the principled provision whereby the remuneration for work of certain state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in legal acts) as well as other employees of institutions (establishments, organisations) financed from the budget used to be established (computed) by applying the coefficients whose basis was the (indexed) MMS confirmed by the Government. However, the said government resolution corrected the former legal regulation under which the MMS established by the Government according to which the remuneration for work of certain state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in legal acts) as well as other employees of institutions (establishments, organisations) financed from the budget used to be established (computed) in the aspect that certain exceptions were established, where the basis of the said coefficients was not the MMS which was established by the Government during the corresponding period, but another value: in February 1992, the official salaries and additional pay of the heads and other officials of state power, state governance and law and order, officers, non-commissioned officers and privates of the systems of the national defence and the interior of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as of employees and pedagogues of institutions of science and studies (Item 4.1 of the Government Resolution (No. 129) “On the Indexation of Remuneration for Work, Pensions and Other Payments” of 26 February 1992 refers to all of them as “employees of governance apparatus”) had to be computed from the basis of 780 roubles (instead of the minimum monthly salary which then was 910 roubles).

On the other hand, even in this case the remuneration for work of corresponding state servants (regardless of how they are referred to in legal acts) as well as that of other employees of institutions (establishments, organisations) financed from the budget, when it was computed by applying respective coefficients, did not use to be less than the MMS, which was established by the Government during the corresponding period, and, as a rule, it would noticeably exceed it.

Thus, the expectation of state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in legal acts), as well as other employees of institutions (establishments, organisations) financed from the budget, that that their monthly remuneration for work would not be smaller than the MMS which was established by the Government during the corresponding period, continued to be upheld.

IV

1. The Nation adopted the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania in the Referendum of 25 October 1992. The Constitution became effective on 2 November 1992.

2. The Constitution entrenches the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution—a fundamental requirement of a democratic state under the rule of law. This constitutional principle is also entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Constitution which provides that any law or other act, which is inconsistent with the Constitution, shall be invalid; this principle in various aspects is also entrenched in various other articles (paragraphs thereof) of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 24 December 2002, 29 October 2003, and 5 March 2004).

While construing the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court held that: this constitutional principle means that the Constitution rests in the exceptional, highest place in the hierarchy of legal acts, that no legal act may be in conflict with the Constitution, that no one is permitted to violate the Constitution, that the constitutional order must be protected, that the Constitution itself consolidates the mechanism enabling one to determine whether legal acts (parts thereof) are not in conflict with the Constitution; in this respect, the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution, which is established in the Constitution, is inseparably linked with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, which is a universal constitutional principle upon which the entire Lithuanian legal system and the Constitution itself are based; violation of the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution would mean that the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is violated as well (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 24 December 2002, 29 October 2003, and 5 March 2004).

Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Procedure for Entry into Force of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania”—a constituent part of the Constitution—prescribes that laws, other legal acts or parts thereof, which were in force on the territory of the Republic of Lithuania prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, shall be effective inasmuch as they are not in conflict with the Constitution and this law, and shall remain in force until they are either declared null and void or brought in line with the provisions of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court also held that, immediately after the Constitution became effective, a legal situation occurred where most of the laws, which had to be issued according to the Constitution and which had to be the basis, pursuant to the Constitution, for all government resolutions related to administration of certain areas of life of the state and society, had not been issued yet, in itself does not justify any legal act issued by the Government during the above-mentioned period, if it is not based on laws. In order not to rule a government resolution which is not based on laws (neither lex generalis, nor lex specialis) to be in conflict with the Constitution, a respective government resolution had to be caused by the necessity to immediately implement certain provisions of the Constitution, the non-implementation of which would have resulted in a fundamental harm to certain values, entrenched in, as well as protected and defended by the Constitution. Besides, the aforementioned legal situation, which originated immediately after the entry into effect of the Constitution, should be considered as a notably short-term situation, i.e. the one of unavoidable transitional period; the aforementioned transitional period, when the said specific legal situation was in place, is long over (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 8 July 2005).

The Constitutional Court also held that the principle of the superiority of the Constitution also implies the duty of the legislature and other lawmaking subjects to revise legal acts, which were issued before the entry into effect of the Constitution, while taking account of norms and principles of the Constitution, to ensure a harmonious hierarchical system of legal acts, which regulate the same relationships (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 3 December 1997, 6 May 1998, 29 October 2003, 5 March 2004 and 13 November 2006, and its decision of 17 January 2007). The process of the revision and assessment of legal acts as to their conformity with the Constitution, which were adopted before the entry into force of the Constitution, is not a one-off act, however, this process may not last for a groundlessly long time period (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 29 October 2003). Under the Constitution, the legislature and other lawmaking subjects have the duty to revise all legal acts adopted by them prior to the entry into effect of the Constitution and still remaining in force, also the legal acts which were adopted by no longer existing institutions after the entry into effect of the Constitution and still remaining in force which regulate the relationships which are assigned to the sphere of regulation of an appropriate legislative subject, as well as the legal acts which had been adopted before the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania and remained in force after the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania and, after the entry into effect of the Constitution, regulate the relationships which are assigned to the sphere of regulation of an appropriate legislative subject, and to assess their conformity with the Constitution within a reasonably short period (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 29 October 2003 and 13 November 2006).

3. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it should be noted that after the entry into force of the Constitution, a duty appeared for the legislature to ensure that the relations linked to the state service would be regulated in the way the Constitution requires. This duty stems, inter alia, from the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution that citizens shall have the right to participate in the governance of their State both directly and through their democratically elected representatives as well as the right to enter on equal terms in the state service of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as from other provisions of the Constitution which entrench the constitutional concept of the state service (in the civil state institutions, military and militarised state institutions).

It has been mentioned that immediately after the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania, the notion “state servant” was sometimes used in legal acts, however, it was not defined in the laws; some relations linked to state service were regulated by substatutory acts, even though the laws did not include a corresponding basis entrenched expressis verbis; the legal regulation was fragmentary and was often changed; the corresponding legal acts (inter alia, those that regulated the relations of payment for work of state servants) included lots of contradictions, ambiguities, other deficiencies; moreover, it was usual that the established legal regulation would be given retroactive force, and some legal acts used to be applied even before their official publishing, sometimes even without their publishing at all.

All this implied the necessity to regulate the relations of state service essentially anew and in a systemic manner.

4. It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that in the course of creation of the system of state service one followed the principled provision that in their nature and content the relations of state service are virtually different from the relations which appear between the employees who work under labour (employment) contracts and the employers (although, there are certain similarities between such relations). It has also been held that the concept of state service which was followed by regulating corresponding social relations by means of legal acts was later consolidated in the Constitution adopted by the Nation in referendum on 25 October 1992; the same can be said about the provisions of such a concept, which have already been discussed in this ruling of the Constitutional Court.

5. The Constitutional Court held that the constitutional concept of the state service may be revealed only on the basis of the provisions of the Constitution itself, their content and systemic links between them. The constitutional concept of the state service may not be construed according to the way the state service relations are regulated by means of laws and substatutory acts. It is the function of the constitutional jurisprudence and the official constitutional doctrine formulated therein to reveal the content of the constitutional concept of the state service. On the other hand, the legislature enjoys broad discretion to choose and consolidate in laws a certain model of organisation of state service. However, it should be stressed that, while regulating the relations of state service, the legislature is bound by the constitutional concept of state service and that it must pay heed to the norms and principles of the Constitution. According to their competence, other law-making subjects must pay heed to the constitutional concept of state service while regulating the relations of state service (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 December 2004).

6. In its acts, the Constitutional Court has formulated broad official constitutional doctrine of state service.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, wherein, subsequent to the petitions of a group of members of the Seimas, the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court and the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioners, the Constitutional Court investigates whether the impugned legal acts (paragraphs thereof), under which the remuneration for work of state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants is computed and paid, one should note the following provisions of the official constitutional doctrine of the state service, which are formulated, inter alia, in the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 18 December 2001 and/or 13 December 2004, wherein the constitutional concept of the state service is construed while relating it with other provisions of the Constitution, inter alia, with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, with the constitutional principle of equal rights of persons, with the constitutional principle of protection of legitimate expectations and with the requirement to heed the hierarchy of the legal acts (the latter one stems from the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law):

the legal relations of state service are legal relations between a state servant and the state, which acts as the employer of the said person; still, despite similarities, the legal relations of state service are not identical to employment relations, which arise between the employee, who is not a state servant, and the employer (irrespective of whether the relations arise in state institutions, municipal institutions, or other enterprises, establishments, and organisations); state servants are a special social group, the specifics of which are determined by the purpose of state service and its social significance; therefore, the legal status of state servants, and implementation of the rights and freedoms enjoyed by them under the Constitution and laws, cannot not bear any important characteristics;

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

to the extent that the relations of the state service are linked with human rights and freedoms, they must be regulated by law; the procedural relations of state service (as well as those related to it) may be regulated by substatutory acts, however, this must be done so that there would be no competition with the legal regulation established by the law; clear criteria on the basis of which the size of payment for work (remuneration for work) is established in regard to the state servants are an essential element of the right of each citizen to receive just pay for work, and they must be established by the law; the budget must provide for funds for remuneration for work of the state servants;

the right to have just pay for work, consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, is a prerequisite for implementation of a great many other constitutional rights and it must be guaranteed to the state servant to not less extent than to other employees, however, due to the type of the state service as a specific working activity their implementation may have certain particularities; under the Constitution, the right appears in regard to the person who has completed a commissioned task, to demand that the whole remuneration for work (pay) which is due according to the legal acts be paid to him, and that it be paid in due time. This right of the person (on the basis of Article 23 of the Constitution as well) is guaranteed, protected and defended as the right to ownership;

in cases when a certain remuneration for work has been established for a state servant (or other employee) by legal acts, then this remuneration must be paid throughout the duration of the established time; state servants (and other employees) have the right to reasonably expect that the rights acquired under the valid legal acts will be retained for the established period of time and will be implemented in reality; the legal regulation may be changed only by following the procedure established in advance and by not violating the principles and norms of the Constitution, it is necessary, inter alia, to follow the principle lex retro non agit, and it is not permitted to deny the legitimate interests and legitimate expectations of the person by the changes of the legal regulation; under the Constitution, a legal situation, where a state servant, who fulfilled the assigned task, is not paid, is paid not in due time or is paid less than it is due according to the laws and other legal acts passed on the basis of the former, is impermissible;

under the Constitution, it is prohibited to diminish the remuneration for work for the state servants on the circumstances not related to the professional characteristics of the employees, if the functions of work of the employee, the scope of his work etc. have not changed;

the constitutional principle of protection of legitimate expectations does not mean that the wage paid to the state servants from the funds of the State Budget or municipal budget, may not be reduced at all, however, this may be done only in exceptional cases and only if it necessary in order to protect the values consolidated in the Constitution; still, even in such exceptional cases the wage may not be reduced in violation of the balance entrenched in the Constitution between the interests of a person and those of the society; the wage may not be reduced only to separate categories of employees who are remunerated for their work from the funds of the state budget or municipal budget; the reduction of the wage must be in line with the constitutional principle of proportionality.

7. When regulating the relations of payment of state servants, heed should also be paid to the constitutional imperative of social harmony and constitutional principle of the state social orientation.

8. In this context, it should be noted that, as the Constitutional Court held in its ruling of 24 September 1998, “in an attempt to ensure the balance between the employer and employee, in employment relations certain guarantees are established for the employees which may not be diminished by the parties in their agreement”, inter alia, “minimum remuneration for work”, which is necessary “in order to protect the social needs of the employee”.

9. The legal regulation whose compliance with the Constitution is impugned in this constitutional justice case is (or was) designed to regulate the relations of payment for work not only of state servants, but also of other persons (employees in the broadest sense of this term)—state politicians, judges, state officials and soldiers. In its acts, the Constitutional Court also formulated the corresponding doctrinal provisions regarding the remuneration for work of some of these other persons (for example, judges, as well as members of the Seimas).

Without repetition of the said provisions in this ruling of the Constitutional Court, it should be held that the constitutional requirements for just payment for work that should be applied for these other persons (employees), do not differ essentially from those that should be applied to just payment for work of state servants; the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine of just payment for work for state servants which is set forth in this ruling of the Constitutional Court and which were formulated in former acts of the Constitutional Court are mutatis mutandis applicable to all persons whose wages are paid from the state (municipal) budget.

The same can also be said about the imperatives of the legal regulation of the relations of remuneration for work of state servants which are set forth below—they are also mutatis mutandis applicable to all persons whose wages are paid from the state (municipal) budget.

10. It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the state may choose various systems of remuneration for work; in the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it should be noted that such a system where a salary of a fixed size is established or such a system where the minimum or maximum salaries are established for the corresponding position, or such a system where the remuneration for work is regulated while applying the coefficient on the basis of which a certain established value is taken (such remuneration for work may be composed of several constituent parts) are not impossible.

It needs to be noted that it does not stem from the Constitution that it is impossible to apply to state servants any of the said systems of payment for work: the system when a salary of a fixed size is established; the system when the minimum or maximum salaries are established for the corresponding position; the system when remuneration for work is regulated while applying the coefficients on the basis of which a certain established value is taken.

11. The possibility of choosing various systems of remuneration for work and the peculiarities of the relations of the state service, in comparison with the work relations, also implies a possibility of regulating the relations of payment for work for state servants in a different manner than of those of other employees, inter alia, establishing different systems of payment for work of state servants (as well as other employees of the institutions whose activity is remunerated from the budget) and other working persons.

12. The Constitutional Court has held that the unity of the system of state service does not deny a possibility of regulating certain relations of state service in a differentiated manner, that a differentiated legal regulation of the relations of state service is based on particularities of state (municipal) institutions and functions performed by them, the place of the said institutions in the system of all the institutions through which state functions are performed, as well as on the powers established for them, the professional skills necessary to respective state servants and other important factors (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 December 2004).

Thus, in principle, not only differentiated legal regulation of the relations of payment for work for state servants and non-state servants, but also differentiated legal regulation of the relations of payment for work of state servants, when these relations are regulated by the legal acts in a different manner with regard to all state servants, are possible. Certainly, in this case, one must heed the constitutional principles of equal rights, justice and proportionality.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it should be noted that the possibility for differentiated legal regulation of the relations of state service also implies a possibility of regulating the relations of remuneration for work of state servants in a different manner and applying, inter alia, different systems of payment for work to different groups of state servants (which are differentiated according to certain clear criteria).

V

1. Upon entry into force of the Constitution, the legal regulation of state service (inter alia, that of relations of payment for work of state servants) was changed; its change was determined, among other factors, also by the fact that (in the course of the implementation of the legislature’s discretion) there was a search for an optimum model of state service. In this context, it should be mentioned that from the beginning the so-called institutional model of state service was consolidated, while later one moved to the so-called functional model of state service.

2. On 4 April 1995, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Functionaries in which a certain concept of state service was established. It needs to be noted that at that time not only this, but also other laws regulated the relations of state service. Later the relations of state service were regulated (with certain exceptions) by the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on State Service, which was adopted on 8 July 1999 (by Article 79 whereof, inter alia, the Law on Functionaries was recognised as no longer valid). Both said laws, as well as other laws, which regulated the relations of state service, were amended and/or supplemented more than once.

3. The aforesaid laws (and also other laws and the substatutory legal acts related with such laws), as well as the other legal acts which were passed prior to the entry into effect of the Constitution and which were designed for regulation of the relations of state service, will be analysed in this constitutional justice case inasmuch as it is necessary to reveal the content and the purpose of the minimum hourly pay and the minimum monthly salary, which, at certain period, were consolidated in legal acts regulating the relations of payment for work, as well as the change (trends in such change) and peculiarities of the MHP and MMS.

4. The Law on Functionaries adopted by the Seimas on 4 April 1995 came into force on 1 May 1995 and was in force (together with subsequent amendments and supplements) till 30 July 1999, when the Law on State Service adopted by the Seimas on 8 July 1999 came into force.

4.1. The Law on Functionaries consolidated the so-called model of institutional state service. Employees of establishments and organisations, save state politicians (the President of the Republic of Lithuania, members of the Seimas, the Prime Minister, Ministers, members of municipal councils), to whom wages were paid from funds of the state or municipal budgets, were regarded as state and municipal servants; thus, the fact that the person was categorised as a state servant was determined whether such a person was remunerated from the state or municipal budget (save the indicated exceptions). According to the content and character of the work performed by the servants, they were grouped into professional corps (teachers, police, judges, medical staff, diplomats, functionaries etc.).

4.2. Various laws used to regulate the relations of state service of the servants classed as belonging to the said professional corps. The Law on Functionaries regulated the official relations of only one of the said corps, i.e. functionaries. The servants performing only economic-technical functions did not use to be categorised as functionaries; the corps of functionaries would include only the servants performing public administration.

4.3. The functionaries were grouped into “A” and “B” levels. The state functionaries of “A” level were servants appointed by the Seimas, the President of the Republic, the Government, as well as other servants specified on the lists of positions and assisting state politicians with executing their functions; the service of these functionaries was linked with the length of powers of their immediate superiors. The state functionaries of “B” level were the servants appointed by the Seimas, the President of the Republic, the Government, their structural subdivisions, ministries, Government establishments (departments, services, inspectorates), departments, services, inspectorates established under ministries, other institutions of state governance, as well as other servants specified on the list of positions; the service of these servants was not linked with the length of powers of the institutions that appointed them. Municipal functionaries were also grouped into “A” and “B” levels. The categorisation of positions as “A” level had to be confirmed by the Seimas upon the submission by the Government.

5. The Law on State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 June 1999, came into force (with certain exceptions) on 30 June 1999. This law was set forth in a new wording (wording of 23 April 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) and it is in force at the time of consideration of the constitutional justice case at issue.

5.1. The Law on State Service (wording of 23 April 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) also consolidated the so-called institutional model of state service.

5.1.1. On the other hand, one abandoned the category (notion) of the functionary and the greater part of employees of establishments financed from the budget were regarded as state servants: the state servant was defined as “a natural person who has acquired the status of a state servant pursuant to this Law and other laws, and who in state (central and municipal) institutions or establishments performs the functions of public administration, economic or technical functions, or provides public services to the public”. State politicians, judges, prosecutors, servicemen of professional military service and persons of some other categories were not categorised as state servants.

5.1.2. Under the Law on State Service (wording of 8 July 1999 with subsequent amendments and supplements) state servants were grouped into state servants of public administration (among them, also into statutory state servants) and public employees. State servants of public administration were state servants “working in a state or local municipal institution or establishment” and “performing the functions of public administration established by means of laws or legal acts adopted on the basis of the former”; public employees were state servants “employed at a state institution, establishment or municipality” and “performing economic or technical functions or providing public services to society”. State servants of public administration were grouped into career state servants, state servants of political (personal) confidence, heads of establishments and acting civil servants, while public employees were grouped into heads of establishments, public employees (including statutory public employees) as well as public employees performing economic or technical functions. The Law on State Service (wording of 8 July 1999 with subsequent amendments and supplements) was applied without reservations to state servants of public administration, save statutory state servants, to whom it had to be applied insofar as their status was not regulated by other laws or statutes; only certain provisions of this law had to be applied in regard of public employees, while some provisions were applicable only in case individual laws or statues drafted by taking account of the peculiarities of this service did not provide otherwise.

5.2. On 23 April 2002, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending the Law on State Service by Article 1 whereof it amended the Law on State Service (wording of 8 July 1999 with subsequent amendments and supplements) and set it forth in a new wording. On the same day the Law on Implementing the Law on Amending the Law on State Service was adopted, whereby the said Law on State Service of the new wording came into force on 1 July 2002.

5.2.1. In the Law on State Service (wording of 23 April 2002 also with subsequent amendments and supplements) one moved from the so-called institutional model of state service to the so-called functional model of state service in which the fact that the person is a state servant is determined not by the fact whether he is remunerated from the state or municipal budget, but whether he performs the activity of public administration (defined in the law). Natural persons who performed duties in state service and carried out public administrative activities specified in this law were regarded as state servants. Under this law, the employees who work under employment contracts and who receive remuneration for work from the state and municipal budgets and state monetary funds are not state servants.

5.2.2. As well as before, state politicians, judges, prosecutors, servicemen of professional military service and persons of some other categories were not ascribed to state servants.

The provisions of the Law on State Service (wording of 23 April 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) are applied to statutory servants insofar as their status is not regulated by statutes or the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Diplomatic Service, save the procedure of payment for work established in the Law on State Service (wording of 23 April 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements).

5.2.3. The positions of state servants are grouped into those of: career; political (personal) confidence; heads of establishments; acting servants.

5.3. The Law on State Service (wording of 8 July 1999 with subsequent amendments and supplements and its wording of 23 April 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) groups positions of state servants into levels and categories. For instance, under the Law on State Service (wording of 8 July 1999 with subsequent amendments and supplements) there used to be 4 such levels (A, B, C, D) and 30 categories, while under the Law on State Service (wording of 23 April 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) there are 3 said levels (A, B, C) and 20 categories.

Under the Law on State Service (wording of 23 April 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements), the level of the position of a state servant is important in establishing the category of a state servant. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it needs to be mentioned that corresponding coefficients of official salaries of state servants are attributed to each category of the position of state servants (according to the annex to the said law).

5.4. Under Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) of Article 8 of the Law on State Service, the Seimas shall approve by its resolution, on a proposal by the Government, a list of positions of state servants of political (personal) confidence in the Seimas and of uniform state service positions in the Office of the Seimas and institutions accountable to the Seimas, the Office of the President of the Republic and institutions accountable to the President of the Republic, the National Courts Administration, the courts, the prosecutor’s office and municipal institutions, which shall specify the levels and categories of state service positions, while under Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of the same article, the Government shall approve a list of positions of state servants of political (personal) confidence of the Prime Minister and of uniform state service positions in the Government’s Office, ministries, and Government departments and establishments under ministries, which shall specify the levels and categories of state service positions.

In this context, it needs to be mentioned that:

on 27 June 2002, the Seimas adopted the Resolution (No. IX-992) “On Confirming the List of Positions of State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence in the Seimas and of Uniform State Service Positions in the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, the Office of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, the National Courts Administration, the Courts, the Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions” (which came into force on 30 June 2002) by Article 1 whereof it confirmed the List of Positions of State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence in the Seimas and of Uniform State Service Positions in the Office of the Seimas and Institutions Accountable to the Seimas, the Office of the President of the Republic and Institutions Accountable to the President of the Republic, the National Courts Administration, the Courts, the Prosecutor’s Office and Municipal Institutions; this Seimas resolution has been amended and/or supplemented more than once;

on 20 May 2002, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 684) “On Confirming the List of Positions of State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence of the Prime Minister and of Uniform State Service Positions in the Government’s Office, Ministries, and Government Departments and Establishments under Ministries” (which came into force on 23 May 2002) whereby the List of Positions of State Servants of Political (Personal) Confidence of the Prime Minister and of Uniform State Service Positions in the Government’s Office, Ministries, and Government Departments and Establishments under Ministries was confirmed; this government resolution has been amended more than once.

The legal regulation established in these legal acts is not a matter of investigation in the constitutional justice case at issue.

5.5. The subsidiarity principle has been entrenched in the Law on State Service (wording of 8 July 1999 with subsequent amendments and supplements and wording of 23 April 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements): laws and other legal acts, which regulate the employment relations and establish social guarantees are applied insofar as such matters are not regulated by the Law on State Service.

In this context, it should be mentioned that one of such laws regulating the employment relations and which is applicable to the relations of state service only in certain cases is the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which was confirmed by Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Approving, Entry into Force and Implementing the Labour Code, which (with certain exceptions) came into force on 1 January 2003 (with subsequent amendments and supplements).

6. Although, after the Constitution had come into force, the legal regulation of the relations of payment for work of state servants was frequently amended, the principled provisions consolidated in respective legal acts which were followed in establishing (computing) the remuneration for work of state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in legal acts) as well as that of other employees of institutions (establishments, organisations) financed from the budget remained virtually unchanged.

For quite a long period the remuneration for work of the said employees (including state servants) used to be established (computed) by following substatutory legal acts, also those which had been passed prior to the adoption of the Constitution and its entry into force, as, for example: the Government Resolution (No. 483) “On Payment for Work of Scientific Workers and Pedagogues of Institutions of Science and Studies” of 23 November 1991 (with subsequent amendments and supplements), which regulated the relations of payment for work of scientific workers and pedagogues of institutions of science and studies; 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 (with subsequent amendments and supplements), which was designed for regulation of the relations of payment for work of the heads and other officials of state power, state administration and law enforcement bodies, who discharged the functions of state power, state governance or those of law and order; the Government Resolution (No. 511) “On Improving the Procedure of Payment for Work of Employees of Establishments and Organisations Financed from the Budget” of 8 July 1993 (with subsequent amendments and supplements), which regulated the official salaries of employees of establishments and organisations financed from the budget, who did not discharge the functions of state governance.

The official salary, which was regulated by applying coefficients whose basis used to be the MMS approved by the Government constituted the main part of the remuneration for work of these employees (including state servants); besides, one used to establish additional pay supplementing the official salary to certain employees and to provide for an opportunity to establish additional payment to employees and to grant bonuses to them.

Such legal regulation meant that the MMS established by the Government continued to be a guarantee that an employee would not be paid remuneration for work smaller than the MMS established by the state, as well as it continued to be one of the elements according to which the remuneration for work of certain employees used to be established (computed). Thus, state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in legal acts), as well as other employees of institutions (establishments, organisations) financed from the budget, continued to have the expectation that that their monthly remuneration for work would not be smaller than the MMS which was established by the Government during the corresponding period.

7. By means of its resolutions, the Government frequently used to increase (often retroactively) the minimum monthly wage and the minimum monthly salary.

8. The role of the MMS as a legal institute acquired new features after the Government Resolution (No. 6) “On Establishing the Sizes of Minimum and Other Payments and the Payment for Work of Employees of Establishments and Organisations Financed from the Budget” of 4 January 1995 came into force on 12 January 1995.

8.1. Item 1 of this resolution prescribed, inter alia, that, as from 1 January 1995 (thus, retroactively), the following shall be approved: the MMS shall be LTL 85 and the MHP shall be LTL 0.5 (Item 1.2), the basic monthly salary (hereinafter also referred to as the BMS) shall be LTL 65, the basic hourly pay (hereinafter also referred to as the BHP) shall be LTL 0.38 (Item 1.3); while it was established in Item 2.1 that as from 1 January 1995 (thus, retroactively) the payment for work of employees and officials of establishments and organisations financed from the budget of the State of Lithuania and municipal budgets shall be regulated “according to coefficients” (i.e. by applying coefficients), whose basis shall be the BMS (BHP) confirmed by this government resolution instead of the MMS (MHP). Also, former government resolutions and ordinances were in part amended (without identifying their titles, nor numbers, as well as disregarding the fact that after the entry into force of the Constitution the Government did not have any powers to issue any “ordinances”), which regulated “the payment for work of employees and officials of the establishments and organisations specified in this item”, by entering the words “basic monthly salary” and “basic hourly pay” instead of the words “minimum monthly salary” and “minimum hourly pay” (Item 2.1). It was also prescribed that “the payment for work of employees and officials of other establishments and organisations financed from the budget, establishments of state power and governance, establishments of the Government and other state establishments, municipal, law enforcement and law and order institutions shall be reviewed without exceeding the fund for their payment for work, which is approved in the budget, however, the size of the official salary of the employee (officials) (by coefficients of the basic monthly salary or the basic hourly pay approved by this Resolution) may not be less (save the cases provided for by the law) than that established prior to 1 January 1995)” (Item 2.3) and that “in regard of the state establishments the payment for work of the employees of which is not regulated by the coefficients of the basic monthly salary or the basic hourly pay approved by this Resolution, the sizes of the schemes of officials salaries (wages) and additional pay and extra pay confirmed by respective <…> government resolutions, which had been re-computed from 1 October 1994 (by taking account of the minimum monthly salary approved <…> by the Government Resolution (No. 907) ‘On Indexing Remuneration for Work and Other Payments’ of 28 September 1994) shall remain in force” (Item 2.4).

It needs to be emphasised that Item 2.5 of the said government resolution provided that “when one takes account of the requirements of Items 2.1, 2.3, and 2.4 of this Resolution, the re-computed official salary (hourly pay) of the employee may not be less of the minimum monthly salary (minimum hourly pay) approved by this Resolution”. Thus, one consolidated an expressis verbis prohibition on paying the monthly official salary to respective state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in legal acts) as well as to other employees of institutions (establishments, organisations) financed from the budget, which would be less than the MMS which the Government established during the corresponding period (and with which these monthly official salaries were not directly related).

8.2. It was proposed that corresponding provisions of the Government Resolution (No. 6) “On Establishing the Sizes of Minimum and Other Payments and the Payment for Work of Employees of Establishments and Organisations Financed from the Budget” of 4 January 1995 (under which the official salary must be regulated by applying coefficients whose basis was to be the BMS (BHP) approved by this government resolution instead of the MMS (MHP)) be applied to the Office of the President of the Republic, the Seimas, and the Constitutional Court (Item 5).

8.3. Analogous legal regulation (i.e. that consolidating a new legal institute—BMS (BHP)) continued to be established also by new government resolutions (as, for instance, the Government Resolution (No. 120) “On Partial Amendment of Certain Resolutions of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on Issues of Payment for Work of Scientific Workers and Pedagogues of Institutions of Science and Studies, as Well as Employees of Establishments and Organisations Financed From the Budget” of 24 January 1995; the Government Resolution (No. 611) “On Payment for Work of Employees of the Organisations That Are under the Jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment” of 28 April 1995) by amending the previously adopted government resolutions whereby the relations of payment for work of employees working in certain establishments financed from the budged used to be regulated.

8.4. It needs to be emphasised that upon consolidation of the said amendments to the legal regulation, the minimum sizes of the official monthly wages of corresponding state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in legal acts) as well as other employees of institutions (establishments, organisations) financed from the budget were not smaller than the MMS which the Government had confirmed at the respective period. The MMS established by the Government was no longer one of the elements according to which the remuneration for work of some employees was established (computed), but it continued to be a guarantee that the employee would not be paid remuneration for work smaller than the MMS established by the state. State servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in legal acts) as well as other employees of institutions (establishments, organisations) financed from the budget continued to have the expectation that that their monthly remuneration for work would not be smaller than the MMS which was established by the Government during the corresponding period.

9. On 6 February 1995, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 189) “On Increasing the Minimum Remuneration for Work” by Item 1 whereof it confirmed that the MMS shall be LTL 100 and the MHP shall be LTL 0.59 as from 1 February 1995 (thus, retroactively). It was established in Item 2 of the same government resolution that “the official salaries (hourly pay) of the employees of the establishments and organisations financed from the budget, whose payment for work is regulated by the sizes of the basic monthly salary (basic hourly pay) according to coefficients, cannot be smaller than the minimum monthly salary (minimum hourly pay) confirmed by this Resolution”. A virtually analogous provision was repeated in some other government resolutions, as, for instance, the Government Resolution (No. 567) “On Increasing the Minimum and Other Payments” of 21 April 1995, the Government Resolution (No. 874) “On Increasing the Minimum Remuneration for Work” of 22 June 1995, the Government Resolution (No. 1212) “On Increasing the Minimum and Other Payments” of 11 September 1995, and the Government Resolution (No. 1635) “On Increasing the Minimum Sizes and Other Payments” of 28 December 1995.

In this context, it needs to be remembered that Article 2 (wording of 9 January 1991) of the Law on Payment for Work consolidated the prohibition on paying any hourly (monthly) payment for work to the employee, which would be smaller than the minimum hourly pay (monthly salary) established by law; Article 90 (wording of 1 June 1972) of the CLL valid at that time established the prohibition on paying the payment of work to a worker or a servant, which would be smaller than “the minimum established by the state”.

10. Article 22 of the Law on Functionaries, which was adopted by the Seimas on 4 April 1995 and which came into force on 1 May 1995, prescribed that: remuneration for work of functionaries shall consist of the official salary and other payments established by law (Paragraph 1); the remuneration for work shall be paid out of the state and municipal budgets (Paragraph 2); the remuneration for work of officials shall be fixed by the law which regulates the remuneration of employees of all establishments and organisations financed out of the state and municipal budgets and the attribution of positions to appropriate categories (Paragraph 3).

11. On 6 April 1995, the Seimas adopted the Resolution (No. I-842) “On Implementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Functionaries” whereby the Government was proposed, inter alia, that it, prior to 1 June 1995, “submit a draft law, which would regulate the payment for work of all establishments and organisations financed from the state budget and municipal budgets and attribution of positions to corresponding categories, to the Seimas”.

11.1. At that period the Government continued to pass legal acts, whereby the relations of payment for work of respective employees were regulated, however, due to the fact that it was expected that the Seimas would adopt the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Basics of Payment for Work of Employees of the establishments and organisations financed from the budget, this regulation was treated as temporary one (for example, the Government Resolution (No. 611) “On Payment for Work of Employees of the Organisations That Are under the Jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment” of 28 April 1995).

11.2. On 9 October 1996, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Basics of Payment for Work of the Heads of the State and the Government, Members of the Seimas, Employees of State and Municipal Establishments”, which (under Article 12 of this law) was to come into force on 1 July 1997. It was established in Article 1 of the same law that it established the general system of assessment of positions (work), establishment of rates and remuneration of the Heads of the State and the Government, members of the Seimas, heads, officials, specialists and workers of institutions of state power and governance, institutions of judicial power and all other establishments and organisations, as well as the Bank of Lithuania, financed from the state, municipal, and state social insurance budgets and from non-budgetary funds, from state foundations established by decisions of the President of the Republic, the Seimas, or the Government, by taking account of the complexity of the work, its social significance, responsibility, work conditions and other factors, as well as the qualification of employees and their work results.

The said law could be applied for only three days: on 4 July 1997, the official gazette “Valstybės žinios” published the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending Articles 12 and 13 of the Law on the Basics of Payment for Work of the Heads of the State and the Government, Members of the Seimas, Employees of State and Municipal Establishments, which was adopted by the Seimas on 17 June 1997, by Article 1 whereof the date of entry into force of the Law on the Basics of Payment for Work of the Heads of the State and the Government, Members of the Seimas, Employees of State and Municipal Establishments was moved (retroactively) to 1 January 1998.

The date of entry into force of the Law on the Basics of Payment for Work of the Heads of the State and the Government, Members of the Seimas, Employees of State and Municipal Establishments was once again moved, this time—to 1 July 1998, by Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Postponing the Entry into Force of the Law on the Basics of Payment for Work of the Heads of the State and the Government, Members of the Seimas, Employees of State and Municipal Establishments, which was adopted by the Seimas on 23 December 1997.

The date of entry into force of the Law on the Basics of Payment for Work of the Heads of the State and the Government, Members of the Seimas, Employees of State and Municipal Establishments was moved later by the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Postponing the Entry into Force of the Law on the Basics of Payment for Work of the Heads of the State and the Government, Members of the Seimas, Employees of State and Municipal Establishments, which was adopted by the Seimas on 25 June 1998, Article 1 whereof prescribed that “the entry into force <…> of the Law on the Basics of Payment for Work of the Heads of the State and the Government, Members of the Seimas, Employees of State and Municipal Establishments shall be postponed until the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on State Service comes into force”. It needs to be noted that this postponement of the entry into force of the Law on the Basics of Payment for Work of the Heads of the State and the Government, Members of the Seimas, Employees of State and Municipal Establishments was made retroactively: the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Postponing the Entry into Force of the Law on the Basics of Payment for Work of the Heads of the State and the Government, Members of the Seimas, Employees of State and Municipal Establishments, which was adopted by the Seimas on 25 June 1998, was published in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios” on 8 July 1998, i.e. after one week from the moment when the Law on the Basics of Payment for Work of the Heads of the State and the Government, Members of the Seimas, Employees of State and Municipal Establishments had come into force.

11.3. However, it needs to be emphasised that the Law on the Basics of Payment for Work of the Heads of the State and the Government, Members of the Seimas, Employees of State and Municipal Establishments was actually never applied.

11.4. In addition, after the Law on State Service came into force on 8 July 1999, the Law on the Basics of Payment for Work of the Heads of the State and the Government, Members of the Seimas, Employees of State and Municipal Establishments (as well as other laws) were recognised as no longer valid (Article 79).

12. By its resolutions, the Government increased the MHP and the MMS, as well as the BHP and the BMS.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, one should mention the Government Resolution (No. 1004) “On Increasing the Minimum Remuneration for Work” of 23 August 1996, Item 1 whereof confirmed that beginning from 1 September 1996 the MMS was to be LTL 300 and the MHP was to be LTL 1.76 and it was prescribed that to the employees who worked on the basis of a employment contract on farmers’ farms, in agricultural companies or other agricultural enterprises, which were registered under procedure established in laws, the annual income of which from sold agricultural production and from rendition of production services to agriculture comprised more than 50 percent of all income the MMS of LTL 210 and the MHP of LTL 1.23 had to be applied temporarily. The Government Resolution (No. 60) “On Increasing the Minimum Remuneration for Work” of 27 January 1997 should also be mentioned, by Item 1 whereof it was confirmed that beginning from 1 February 1997 the MMS was to be LTL 330 and the MHP was to be LTL 1.95 and it was prescribed that to the employees who worked on the basis of an employment contract on farmers’ farms, in agricultural companies or other agricultural enterprises, which were registered under procedure established in laws, the annual income of which from sold agricultural production and from rendition of production services to agriculture comprised more than 50 percent of all income the MMS of LTL 210 and the MHP of LTL 1.23 had to be applied temporarily, till 1 March 1997.

Thus, in the said government resolutions the MHP and the MMS were differentiated.

Alongside, it needs to be noted that a provision was established in these government resolutions that the official salaries (hourly pay) of the employees of the establishments and organisations (and also of enterprises as indicated in the Government Resolution (No. 60) “On Increasing the Minimum Remuneration for Work” of 27 January 1997), whose payment for work is regulated by the BMS (BHP) coefficients, cannot be smaller than the MMS (MHP) confirmed by means of the respective government resolution (the first section of Item 2 of Government Resolution (No. 1004) “On Increasing the Minimum Remuneration for Work” of 23 August 1996; Item 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 60) “On Increasing the Minimum Remuneration for Work” of 27 January 1997).

13. It needs to be noted that at the discussed period the remuneration for work of state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in legal acts) as well as other employees of institutions (establishments, organisations) financed from the budget used to be increased by not only increasing the MHP and the MMS, while later—by increasing the BHP and the BMS, with which the sizes of their official wage were linked, but also by other ways, inter alia, by establishing personal additional pay (up to 100 percent of the size of the official wage) as well as extra pay.

14. During the discussed period there used to be also the legal regulation whereby the remuneration for work of state servants (regardless of how they used to be referred to in legal acts) as well as other employees of institutions (establishments, organisations) financed from the budget was linked not with the MHP or the MMS, or (later) with the BHP and the BMS, but with the average remuneration for work (for example, Item 1 of the Seimas Resolution (No. I-1273) “On the Wage of the Chairperson of the Board of the Bank of Lithuania” of 2 April 1996 established the wage of the Chairperson of the Board of the Bank of Lithuania, which was 8 average remunerations for work; it was established in Article 26 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Equal Opportunities that the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman shall be paid a wage in the amount of 5 average remunerations for work (ARW) of the preceding month as announced by the Department of Statistics to the Government).

15. It was established in Article 31 of the Law on State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 July 1999 and which came into force (with certain exceptions) on 30 July 1999 that the remuneration for work of a state servant shall be composed of: the positional salary; extra pay for the period of service; additional payment. It was established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 32 of the same law that: the amount of the positional salary shall be determined in accordance with the coefficient of the positional salary the rates whereof for different grades shall be set forth by the law; the amount of the position monthly salary shall be calculated by multiplying the appropriate coefficient of the positional salary by the amount of the minimum monthly salary.

16. Under Paragraph 1 (wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 69 of the Law on State Service, the implementation of the system of payment for work set forth in Chapter Six of this law had to begin when the positions of public servants were attributed to grades and categories and the coefficients of salaries were established, but not later than from 1 March 2000.

However, the implementation of the system of payment for work of state servants used to be postponed many a time (by the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 29 August 2000; the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending Articles 62 and 69 of the Law on State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 23 December 2000, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending Articles 4, 33, 62, and 69 of the Law on State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 5 July 2001; the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 4, 33, 60, 62, 69, and 78 of the Law on State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 27 September 2001; the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending Articles 62 and 69 of the Law on State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 18 October 2001).

Eventually, after these amendments and supplements were made, the legal regulation was established in the Law on State Service (wording of 8 July 1999 with subsequent amendments and supplements) that the new system of payment for work of state servants had to be applied in regard of state servants of public administration (to certain extent only, as a transitional period was established, during which the previously computed and received remuneration for work had to be gradually moved to the remuneration for work, which was established according to the said law) as from 1 October 2001, while in regard of public employees it was not begun to be applied at all—with regard to the latter it should have been applied as from 1 July 2002.

17. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it needs to be emphasised that the Law on State Service (wording of 8 July 1999 with subsequent amendments and supplements made by the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 4, 33, 60, 62, 69, and 78 of the Law on State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 27 September 2001 as well as those made by other amendments) established the legal regulation where in regard of respective state servants the MMS was not only a guarantee that they would not paid the remuneration for work which is smaller than the MMS that was established by the Government during the corresponding period, but it again became one of the elements under which their remuneration for work was established (computed).

It needs to be held that state servants continued to have an expectation that their monthly remuneration for work would not be smaller than the MMS which was established by the Government during the corresponding period.

18. The Law on State Service (wording of 8 June 1999) underwent other amendments and supplements more than once, however, they did not establish any such legal regulation whereby state servants could be paid the monthly official wage which would be smaller than the MMS which was established by the Government during the corresponding period.

19. On 29 August 2000, the Seimas adopted the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, Article 8 (which later was recognised as no longer valid by Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, which was adopted by the Seimas on 17 October 2000) whereof prescribed that this law shall come into force “on 1 August 2000” (save a separately indicated exception); the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials was officially published in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios” on 7 September 2000. Taking account of the fact that, under the Constitution, only published laws shall be valid (Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Constitution), of the fact that, according to the general legal principle lex retro non agit (which is also established in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania), the legal force of legal acts must only be prospective (save the cases allowed by the general legal principle lex benignior retro agit), as well as of the fact that under Paragraph 1 of Article 70 of the Constitution, the laws adopted by the Seimas shall come into force after they are signed and officially promulgated by the President of the Republic, unless the laws themselves establish a later date for their entry into force, it should be held that the provisions of the Law on Amending the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, which was adopted by the Seimas on 29 August 2000, could be applied only as from 7 September 2000, after this law had been published in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”, and that it could not be applied to any relations, which appeared before that date (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 9 August 2006).

The Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials establishes the sizes of remuneration for work as well as conditions of its payment to state politicians, judges and state officials of the Republic of Lithuania to whom the Law on State Service is not applied (Article 1). It was established in Article 3 (wording of 29 August 2000) of the same law that the remuneration for work of state politicians shall be composed of the positional salary and an extra pay for the years served to the State of Lithuania (Paragraph 1), while the remuneration for work of judges and state officials also shall include a one-time payment (Paragraph 2); in regard of judges this element of the remuneration for work was annulled by Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials and the Appendix Thereof, which was adopted by the Seimas on 5 July 2002. Article 4 (wording of 29 August 2000) of the same law prescribed, inter alia, that the positional salaries of judges are computed by applying coefficients of the size of the minimum monthly salary approved by the Government (Paragraph 1); the official salary is computed by multiplying the respective coefficient (established in the annex to this law) of the positional salary by the minimum monthly salary approved by the Government (Paragraph 2); the wage that was not received by municipal council members as state politicians in their main workplace because of the time that they spent at sittings of the council or its subunits, as well as the time spent while discharging the functions of a member of the municipal council, shall be paid according to the bases established by the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Local Self-government (Paragraph 3).

20. The remuneration for work of state politicians, judges and state officials established by the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials had to be paid as from 1 January 2006 (it needs to be mentioned that by Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending Article 7 of the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, which was adopted by the Seimas on 27 March 2001, the formula “as from 1 January 2006” was replaced by the formula “after the transition period is over”). Until then, when the remuneration for work of state politicians, judges and state officials was computed, one had to apply the provisions of the transitional period, under which the remuneration for work that existed prior to 1 January 2001 had to be gradually moved to the remuneration for work established by the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials.

In regard of some state politicians a different procedure of implementation of the said law was established; for example, it was prescribed that “in respect of the Speaker of the Seimas, Seimas officials and members of the Seimas, the size of remuneration for work and the conditions of its payment shall be commenced to be applied from the day of the first sitting of the next newly elected Seimas” (Paragraph 2 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 7).

21. It needs to be mentioned that, on 12 July 2001, in the constitutional justice case subsequent to the petitions (all in all, eleven petitions of the petitioners, which are summarised herein) submitted by the petitioners—the Vilnius City Court of the First District, the Higher Administrative Court, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court—requesting an investigation into whether Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 5, Article 7 of the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, as well as Chapter II titled “Official Salaries of Judges” of the Appendix to the same law, the Law on Amending Article 7 of the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, 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 on 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 were not in conflict with Articles 5 and 109, Paragraph 1 of Article 113 and Paragraph 1 of Article 114 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court passed 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” of 28 December 1999 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” whereby it recognised, inter alia, that

Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 (wordings of 29 August 2000, 17 October 2000 and 27 March 2001), Paragraph 5 of Article 7 (wordings of 29 August 2000 and 27 March 2001) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 7 of the same law establishing the transitional period (during which the remuneration for work of judges was to be reduced) and Chapter II entitled “Official Salaries of Judges” of the Appendix to the same law to the extent that it established reduction of remuneration for work of the judges whose remuneration for work was bigger than the remuneration for work of judges established in this law conflicted with Article 5, Article 109, Paragraph 1 of Article 114 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

Paragraph 4 of Article 7 of the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials to the extent that it prescribed that the remuneration for work of the judges appointed to the post of a judge during the transitional period (during which the remuneration for work of judges had to be reduced) was established and computed on the basis of the provisions and formulas of Article 7 of this law which established the reduction of judges’ remuneration conflicted with Article 5, Article 109, Paragraph 1 of Article 114 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

22. The Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials (wording of 29 August 2000) was amended and/or supplemented more than once, however, such amendments or supplements did not establish any such legal regulation whereby any state politicians, judges and state officials could be paid the monthly official salary which would be smaller than the MMS which was established by the Government during the corresponding period.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it needs to be specially emphasised that the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials (wording of 29 August 2000, as well as with subsequent amendments and supplements) established the legal regulation whereby in regard of state servants the MMS once again became one of the elements under which their remuneration for work was established (computed).

It needs to be held that state politicians, judges and state officials continued to have the expectation that that their monthly remuneration for work would not be smaller than the MMS which was established by the Government during the corresponding period.

23. As it was held, by Article 1 of the Law on Amending the Law on State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 23 April 2002 and which came into force (with certain exceptions) on 1 July 2002, the Law on State Service (wording of 8 July 1999 with subsequent amendments and supplements) was amended and set forth in a new wording.

24. Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Law on State Service (wording of 23 April 2002) provides that the remuneration for work of a state servant shall be composed of: the positional salary; additional pay; extra pay. Article 24 of the same law prescribed, inter alia, that the positional salary is established according to the category of the position and is the same for the positions of the same category (Paragraph 1); the size of the positional salary is computed by applying the coefficient of the positional salary; the coefficient to be applied to positions of each category is established by this law (annex thereto); the unit of the coefficient of the positional salary is of the size of the MMS approved by the Government; the size of the positional salary is computed by multiplying the corresponding coefficient of the positional salary by the MMS (Paragraph 2).

25. The legal regulation established in the Law on State Service (wording of 23 April 2002) was amended and/or supplemented more than once, however, such amendments or supplements did not establish any such legal regulation whereby any state servants could be paid the monthly official salary which would be smaller than the MMS which was established by the Government during the corresponding period.

26. In this context it needs to be mentioned that the Law on Amending the Law on State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 23 April 2002, did not establish any such legal regulation, either. On the other hand, it was established in Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the same law that “in 2002, the remuneration for work established in the Law on State Service shall be paid from the appropriations approved for the remuneration for work in the 2002 state and municipal budgets”.

27. On 20 May 2002, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of Remuneration for Work of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” whereby, as it is asserted in the same government resolution, in pursuance with Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service, the Government resolved to confirm the Rules of the Calculation of Remuneration for Work of the State Servant for the Second Half-year of 2002; according to these rules the remuneration for work of the state servant was to be calculated provided in the second half-year of 2002 the demand for remuneration for work of state servants exceeded the appropriations for remuneration for work confirmed in the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and municipal budgets; this calculation of the remuneration for work of the state servant was to be carried out by state and municipal institutions or establishments according to the indexation coefficient. In the Rules of the Calculation of Remuneration for Work of the State Servant for the Second Half-year of 2002 the legal regulation is established under which in cases where a state or municipal institution does not have enough appropriated funds for payment of remuneration for work of state servants a lesser remuneration is calculated to state servants by applying the indexation coefficient than is due under laws or other legal acts passed on their basis and for the work of the state servants only part of the remuneration for work that is due to them under laws or other legal acts passed on their basis could be paid (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 December 2004).

28. In this context it needs to be mentioned that on 13 December 2004, in the constitutional justice case subsequent to the petitions of the petitioners—the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court, and the Alytus District Local Court—requesting an investigation into whether some legal acts regulating the relations of state service and those related thereto were not in conflict with the Constitution and laws (all in all, six petitions of the petitioners, which are summarised herein), the Constitutional Court passed the Ruling “On the compliance of some legal acts whereby the relations of state service and those linked thereto are regulated with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and laws” whereby it was recognised, inter alia, that the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of Remuneration for Work of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002 and the Rules of the Calculation of Remuneration for Work of the State Servant for the Second Half-year of 2002 confirmed by the same government resolution were in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

29. After Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service amended and set forth Paragraph 3 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 1 of the Law on State Service in a different way, it was prescribed that “the remuneration for work established in Chapter VI of the Law on the State Service is paid from the remuneration for work appropriations confirmed in the state and municipal budgets of a respective year” and that “if the demand of funds calculated by the state or municipal institution or establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants for remuneration for work for state servants exceeds the appropriations for remuneration for work confirmed in the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and municipal budgets for a respective year, the remuneration for work of state servants shall be calculated according to the rules of calculation of remuneration for work of state servants, which are confirmed by the Government, however, the positional salary of the state servant cannot be smaller than that received by him until 30 June 2002.”

30. By the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 December 2004, the provision “if the demand of funds calculated by the state or municipal institution or establishment according to confirmed unified categories of positions of state servants for remuneration for work for state servants exceeds the appropriations for remuneration for work confirmed in the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and municipal budgets for a respective year, the remuneration for work of state servants shall be calculated according to the rules of calculation of remuneration for work of state servants, which are confirmed by the Government, however, the positional salary of the state servant cannot be smaller than that received by him until 30 June 2002” of Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Supplementing the Law on the State Service was ruled to be in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

31. On 17 January 2003, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 53) “On the Rules of the Calculation of Remuneration for Work of State Servants” whereby virtually the same principle of calculation of remuneration for work of state servants was established as it was established in the Government Resolution (No. 686) “On the Calculation of Remuneration for Work of State Servants for the Second Half-year of 2002” of 20 May 2002, and which was to be applied in case the established demand for funds for remuneration for work of state servants exceeds the appropriations for remuneration for work confirmed in the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and municipal budgets (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 December 2004).

32. The Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 December 2004 ruled Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 53) “On the Rules of the Calculation of Remuneration for Work of State Servants” of 17 January 2003 and the Rules of the Calculation of Remuneration for Work of State Servants confirmed by the same government resolution to be in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principle of the stat under the rule of law.

33. It needs to be noted that the said legal regulation, which was ruled anticonstitutional, when one takes account of the overall legal regulation of that time, did not create any preconditions for paying any such monthly official salary to any state servants, which would be smaller than the MMS that was established by the Government during the corresponding period.

34. The legal regulation of the relations of payment for work, which was established in the Law on State Service (both the wording of 8 July 1999 with subsequent amendments and supplements and the wording of 23 April 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) and the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials (wording of 29 August 2000 with subsequent amendments and supplements), did not encompass the relations of payment for work of all working persons who were remunerated from the budget.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it needs to be noted that substatutory legal acts continued to regulate some of these relations, namely, the relations of payment for work of servicemen (regardless of how they used to be referred to in legal acts); the legal regulation established therein was amended by moving to the computation of the positional salary, where this positional salary was related with the minimum monthly salary established by the Government. For instance, the sizes of wages of servicemen of professional military service, volunteer servicemen and active reserve servicemen continued to be computed by following the Government Resolution (No. 1353) “On the Conditions of Payment for the Service of Servicemen of Professional Military Service, Volunteer Servicemen and Active Reserve Servicemen” of 20 November 1998 whereby in the course of computing the official wages of the said persons one used to take the basic monthly salary confirmed by the Government as the unit of the coefficient; after the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 301) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1353) ‘On the Conditions of Payment for the Service of Servicemen of Professional Military Service, Volunteer Servicemen and Active Reserve Servicemen’ of 20 November 1998” on 18 March 2004, the minimum monthly salary confirmed by the Government was taken as the unit of such coefficient. The sizes of official salaries of servicemen of operative services of the system of national defence and statutory state officials performing civil service of national defence used to be computed by following the Government Resolution (No. 879) “On the Conditions of Payment for the Service of Servicemen of Operative Services of the System of National Defence and Statutory State Officials Performing Civil Service of National Defence” of 21 July 2000 in which when the official salaries of corresponding servicemen (and statutory state servants) were computed, the BMS confirmed by the Government used to be taken as the unit of the coefficient, while after the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 716) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 879) ‘On the Conditions of Payment for the Service of Servicemen of Operative Services of the System of National Defence and Statutory State Officials Performing Civil Service of National Defence’ of 21 July 2000” on 10 June 2004, the MMS confirmed by the Government was taken as the unit of such coefficient.

Thus, also, in regard of these persons—servicemen (regardless of how they used to be referred to in legal acts)—the MMS was not only a guarantee that they would not be paid the remuneration for work smaller than the MMS established by the Government during the corresponding period, but the MMS again became one of the elements according to which their remuneration for work was established (computed).

35. As mentioned before, under the Labour Code, which (with certain exceptions) came into force on 1 January 2003 (with subsequent amendments and supplements), the Government, upon the recommendation of the Tripartite Council, shall determine the MHP and the MMS and that, upon the recommendation of the Tripartite Council, the Government may establish different rates of the MHP and the MMS for different branches of economy, regions or groups of employees. The compliance of the provision that the Government, upon the recommendation of the Tripartite Council, may establish different rates of the MHP and the MMS for different branches of economy, regions or groups of employees, with the Constitution is impugned in the constitutional justice case at issue.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the subsidiarity principle has been entrenched in the Law on State Service (wording of 8 July 1999 with subsequent amendments and supplements and wording of 23 April 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements): laws and other legal acts, which regulate the employment relations and establish social guarantees are applied insofar as such matters are not regulated by the Law on State Service.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it should be held that the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code do not mean that one can establish any such overall legal regulation whereby there would no longer be any guarantee to different branches of economy, regions or groups of employees, upon establishment of different MHP and MMS by the Government, so that a certain state servant (or another employee of an institution financed from the budget) would not receive the monthly remuneration for work which would be smaller than the highest MMS established by the Government with respect to other working persons at certain period.

36. It has been mentioned that:

by its Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003 the Government confirmed that as from 1 September 2003 the MHP shall be LTL 2.67 and the MMS shall be LTL 450 to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, save the employees of agricultural entities, when the income of these entities from sold agricultural production during the previous calendar year comprised more than 50 percent of all income, as well as to employees hired by farmers and to the farmers to whom the minimum monthly salary is applied under procedure established in legal acts and save state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants, in regard of whom the confirmed MHP was LTL 2.55 and the confirmed MMS was LTL 430;

by its Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004 the Government confirmed that as from 1 May 2004 the MHP shall be LTL 2.95 and the MMS shall be LTL 500 to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, save state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants, in regard of whom the confirmed MHP was LTL 2.55 and the confirmed MMS was LTL 430;

by its Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 the Government confirmed that as from 1 July 2005 the MHP shall be LTL 3.28 and the MMS shall be LTL 550 to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, save state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants, in regard of whom the confirmed MHP was LTL 2.57 and the confirmed MMS was LTL 430;

by its Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006, in part amending the legal regulation established in the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, the Government confirmed that as from 1 April 2006 the MHP shall be LTL 3.35 to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the minimum monthly salary is applied under procedure established in legal acts, save state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants, in regard of whom the confirmed MHP was LTL 2.62;

by its Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006, the Government confirmed that as from 1 July 2006 the MHP shall be LTL 3.65 and the MMS shall be LTL 600 to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, save state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants, in regard of whom the confirmed MHP was LTL 2.62 and the confirmed MMS was LTL 430.

37. By such legal regulation established in the said government resolutions the MHP and the MMS were differentiated by establishing smaller sizes of the MHP and the MMS in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants (while under the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, also in regard of the employees of agricultural entities, when the income of these entities from sold agricultural production during the previous calendar year comprised more than 50 percent of all income, as well as to employees hired by farmers and to the farmers to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts) than to other working persons.

Alongside, it needs to be emphasised that in regard of state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants the MMS was one of the elements according to which their remuneration for work was established (computed).

Therefore, taking account of the overall legal regulation, there are no grounds to assert that under these government resolutions it was possible to pay such monthly official salary to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants (to whom corresponding exceptions were established) which would be smaller not only than the MMS which was established by the Government during the corresponding period, but also than the bigger MMS which the Government had established to other working persons during the corresponding period.

It needs to be held that such legal regulation did not deny the expectation of state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants that their monthly remuneration for work would not be smaller than the MMS which was established by the Government during the corresponding period.

It also needs to be held that state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants continued (and continue) to have the expectation that their monthly remuneration for work will not be smaller than the biggest MMS which was (or will be) established in regard of all other working persons by the Government during the corresponding period.

38. The Law on State Service (wording of 23 April 2002) and the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials (wording of 29 August 2000 with subsequent amendments and supplements) were amended by the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending the Law on State Service and the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials, which was adopted by the Seimas on 19 July 2006 and which came into force on 8 August 2006.

38.1. It was established in the Law on Amending the Law on State Service and the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials that the sizes of the positional salary of state servants state politicians, judges, prosecutors and state officials shall be computed (according to corresponding annexes of the said laws) by applying the coefficient of the positional salary taking the basic size of the positional salary (hereinafter also referred to as the BSPS) as the unit of the coefficient of the positional salary.

38.2. Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on Amending the Law on State Service and the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials provides that “the basic size in 2006, which should be applied in computing the positional salaries of state politicians, judges, state officials and state servants shall be LTL 430”.

38.3. According to such legal regulation, the replacement of the notion “the size of the minimum monthly salary” by the notion “the basic size of the positional salary” did not change the essence of the legal regulation that had existed until that time: the sizes of the positional salary of state servants, state politicians, judges, prosecutors and state officials continued to be computed by taking a certain established size as the basis and multiplying it by the respective coefficient. In addition, the MMS continued to be a guarantee to state servants, state politicians, judges, prosecutors and state officials that their remuneration for work will not be smaller than the MMS established by the state; taking account of the overall legal regulation, it needs to be held that the said amendments to the Law on Amending the Law on State Service and the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials did not create any preconditions for paying a positional salary to any state servant, state politician, judge, prosecutor, or state official, which would be smaller than the MMS that is established by the Government during the corresponding period.

38.4. Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of Chapter III of the Law on Amending the Law on State Service and the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials provides that “the Government, when it submits the draft Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2007 State Budget and Municipal Budgets to the Seimas, also shall submit the draft size of the positional salary to be applied in 2007; the Government shall calculate such a size by planning the necessary appropriations in the 2007 state and municipal budgets and by assessing the average annual inflation (by calculating the national consumer price index) and other factors that have influence on the size of and changes in the average remuneration for work in the public sector”; Paragraph 3 of the same article provides that “the Government shall, annually and prior to May 1, submit the basic size of 2008 and of subsequent years, which should be applied in computing the positional salaries of state politicians, judges, state officials and state servants to the Seimas”; Paragraph 4 of the same article provides that “the Government must, within three months of the entry into force of this Law, revise and amend the valid legal acts and stipulate that in the course of computing remuneration for work the basic size of the positional salary shall be applied instead of the minimum monthly salary”.

38.4.1. It needs to be noted that government resolutions used to be adopted whereby previous government resolutions, which regulated the relations of separate groups of employees, were respectively amended by taking the BSPS as the unit of the coefficient of the official salary (instead of the MMS as the unit of the coefficient of the official salary), which was equal to the BSPS of the corresponding year as approved by the Seimas, which was to be applied in order to compute the positional salaries of state politicians, judges, state officials and state servants (for example, the Government Resolution (No. 893) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1353) ‘On the Conditions of Payment for the Service of Servicemen of Professional Military Service, Volunteer Servicemen and Active Reserve Servicemen’ of 20 November 1998” of 15 September 2006; the Government Resolution (No. 1006) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 879) ‘On the Payment for the Service of the Servicemen of Professional Military Service Who Serve in the Second Department of Operational Services under the Ministry of National Defence’ of 21 July 2000” of 30 October 2006).

38.4.2. On 7 December 2006, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2007 State Budget and Municipal Budgets. This law came into force on 19 December 2006. It was established in Article 9 of the Law on the Approval of the Financial Indicators of the 2007 State Budget and Municipal Budgets that in 2007 the basic size of the positional salary of state servants, state politicians, judges and state officials shall be LTL 442.

38.5. After the Law on Amending the Law on State Service and the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians, Judges and State Officials had prescribed that the sizes of the positional salary of state servants, state politicians, judges, prosecutors and state officials shall be computed by applying the coefficient of the positional salary and taking the BSPS as the unit of the coefficient of the positional salary, the MMS established by the Government ceased to be one of the elements according to which the remuneration for work of respective working persons would be established (computed) (however, it continued to be a guarantee that no employee will be paid the remuneration for work that is smaller than the MMS, which is established by the Government during the corresponding period). The BSPS became such an element, the size of which was equal to the size of the MMS which had been applied until then.

39. As mentioned before, the Government Resolution (No. 1301) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 298) ‘On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration’ of 27 March 2006” of 20 December 2006 confirmed that as from 1 January 2007 the minimum hourly payment shall be LTL 3.65 and the minimum monthly salary shall be LTL 600.

40. As regards all categories of state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants, the smallest coefficient of positional salary is 2.35—this is the coefficient of the positional salary of state servants of the 1st category, which was established in the annex titled “The Categories Positions of State Servants of the Republic of Lithuania and the Coefficients of Their Positional Salaries” (wording of 19 July 2006) to the Law on State Service (wording of 23 April 2002).

It needs to be held that after the payment for work of state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants had been linked with the coefficients the basis of which is taken the basic size of the positional salary (LTL 442) which is approved by the Seimas, the minimum sizes of monthly official salaries of state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants not only are not smaller than the MMS which was established to be applicable as from 1 January 2007 by the Government Resolution (No. 1301) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 298) ‘On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration’ of 27 March 2006” of 20 December 2006 (and with which these official salaries are not directly related), but they also substantially exceed it.

VI

On the compliance of the provision “the Government may establish different rates of the minimum hourly pay and the minimum monthly salary for different branches of economy, regions or groups of employees” of Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

1. The petitioners—a group of members of the Seimas, the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, and the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court—request an investigation into whether the provision “the Government may establish different rates of the minimum hourly pay and the minimum monthly salary for different branches of economy, regions or groups of employees” of Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

2. When one decides whether the provision “the Government may establish different rates of the minimum hourly pay and the minimum monthly salary for different branches of economy, regions or groups of employees” of Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be noted that, as it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court:

after the independent State of Lithuania was restored on 11 March 1990 and after one began to create an authentic Lithuanian national legal system, at the very beginning of the creation of this system the legal regulation of the relations of state service (which is also synonymously called public service) was and is grounded on the principled provision that in their nature and content the relations of state service are virtually different from the relations which appear between the employees who work under labour (employment) contracts and the corresponding employers (although, there are certain similarities between such relations);

the state may choose various systems of remuneration for work; also, such a system, where remuneration for work is regulated by applying coefficients, while the basis of the latter is a certain fixed size is not impossible;

the possibility of choosing various systems of remuneration for work and the peculiarities of the relations of the state service, in comparison with the work relations, also implies a possibility of regulating the relations of remuneration for work for the state servants in a different manner than those of other employees, inter alia, establishing different systems of remuneration for work for the state servants (as well as other employees of the institutions whose activity is remunerated from the budget) and other working persons;

the possibility of the differentiated legal regulation of the relations of the state service also implies a possibility of regulating the relations of remuneration for work for the state servants in a different manner and applying, inter alia, different systems for remuneration for work to different (which are differentiated according to certain clear criteria) groups of state servants;

in itself the differentiated legal regulation of the legal relations of remuneration for work does not imply any discriminatory provisions, nor any provisions related with granting any privileges.

3. In addition, such a possibility of differentiated legal regulation of the relations of payment for work also arises from international legal acts, inter alia, from EU law.

4. As mentioned before, the constitutional imperatives of the legal regulation of the relations of remuneration for work of state servants are applicable mutatis mutandis to all persons whose wages are paid from the state (municipal) budget.

5. The impugned provision “the Government may establish different rates of the minimum hourly pay and the minimum monthly salary for different branches of economy, regions or groups of employees” of Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code merely establishes the said possibility of differentiated legal regulation of the relations of payment for work.

6. It needs to be emphasised that in itself the mere fact that Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code consolidates a possibility of establishing different rates of the MHP and the MMS for different branches of economy, regions or groups of employees does not mean that a certain group of persons is discriminated or that a certain group of persons is granted privileges, or that the right of a person to receive fair pay for work is restricted or denied.

7. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the conclusion should be drawn that the provision “the Government may establish different rates of the minimum hourly pay and the minimum monthly salary for different branches of economy, regions or groups of employees” of Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of the Labour Code is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

VII

On the compliance of Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003, Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004, Items 1 and 2 (wordings of 4 April 2005 and 27 March 2006) of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005, and Item 1 (wording of 27 March 2006) of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

1. When deciding whether Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003 to the extent that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts; Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004 to the extent that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts; Items 1 and 2 (wording of 4 April 2005) of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 to the extent that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and whether Items 1 and 2 (wording of 27 March 2006) of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 to the extent that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts; Item 1 (wording of 27 March 2006) of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 to the extent that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, were not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it should be noted that, as it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court,

according to the laws and other legal acts, which were valid at the time of adoption of the corresponding government resolutions (the legal regulation established in which is impugned in the constitutional justice case at issue) in regard of state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants (differently from the employees who worked under labour (employment) contracts) the MMS was one of the elements according to which their remuneration for work was established (computed);

the impugned legal regulation which was established in the said government resolutions differentiated the MHP and the MMS and established smaller sizes of the MHP and the MMS to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to other working persons, however, while taking account of the overall legal regulation, there are no grounds to assert that under these government resolutions it was possible to pay such monthly official salary to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants which would be smaller not only than the MMS which was established by the Government during the corresponding period, but also than the bigger MMS which the Government had established to other working persons during the corresponding period;

such legal regulation did not deny the expectation of state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants that their monthly remuneration for work would not be smaller than the MMS which was established by the Government during the corresponding period.

2. Alongside, it needs to be noted that the notion of the MMS was (is) employed legally incorrectly in the government resolutions whose provisions are impugned in the constitutional justice case at issue. This misleads legal subjects and leads to some confusion. However, this fact alone cannot be grounds for recognition that corresponding provisions were (are) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

3. Taking account of the fact that the MMS established to state servants and some other employees is one of the elements, by multiplying which by the respective coefficient the remuneration for work of a state servant or some other employee is established (computed), it should be held that the petitions of the petitioners—a group of members of the Seimas, the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, and the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court—requesting an investigation into the compliance of the provisions of corresponding government resolutions virtually mean that the Constitutional Court is requested to decide the issue of increase of wages of state servants and some other employees. It needs to be noted that the Constitutional Court does not decide as to what size of the MMS or what size of remuneration for work should be established for any employees, inter alia, state servants. The wages of employees are established by taking account of various economic, social and other factors, the assessment of which is not a matter of constitutional control.

4. The same can be said as regards the legal regulation whereby the MHP is established to employees.

5. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the following conclusions should be drawn:

Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003 to the extent that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

Items 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004 to the extent that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

Items 1 and 2 (wording of 4 April 2005) of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 to the extent that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

Items 1 and 2 (wording of 27 March 2006) of the Government Resolution (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 to the extent that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, were not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

Item 1 (wording of 27 March 2006) of the Government Resolution (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 to the extent that, according to the petitioners, smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, were not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

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

ruling:

1. To recognise that the provision “the Government may establish different rates of the minimum hourly pay and the minimum monthly salary for different branches of economy, regions or groups of employees” of Paragraph 1 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 64-2569) of Article 187 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

2. To recognise that Items 1 and 2 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2003, No. 73-3371) of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 937) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 18 July 2003 to the extent that smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

3. To recognise that Items 1 and 2 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2004, No. 46-1511) of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 316) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 24 March 2004 to the extent that smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

4. To recognise that Items 1 and 2 (wording of 4 April 2005; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2005, No. 45-1444) of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 to the extent that smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

5. To recognise that Items 1 and 2 (wording of 27 March 2006; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2006, No. 35-1251) of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 361) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 4 April 2005 to the extent that smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, were not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

6. To recognise that Item 1 (wording of 27 March 2006; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2006, No. 35-1251) of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 298) “On Increasing Minimum Work Remuneration” of 27 March 2006 to the extent that smaller MHP and MMS were confirmed in regard to state politicians, judges, state officials, servicemen and state servants than to the employees who work in enterprises, establishments and organisations with no regard to the form of ownership thereof, as well as to other persons to whom the MMS is applied under procedure established in legal acts, were not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that each human being shall have the right to receive fair pay for work, 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

                                                                                   Egidijus Kūris

                                                                                   Kęstutis Lapinskas

                                                                                   Zenonas Namavičius

                                                                                   Ramutė Ruškytė

                                                                                   Vytautas Sinkevičius

                                                                                   Stasys Stačiokas

                                                                                   Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis