Lt

On the reduction of paternity benefits

Case No. 29/2010

 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 RULING

ON THE COMPLIANCE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S PROVISIONAL LAW ON THE RECALCULATION AND PAYMENT OF SOCIAL PAYMENTS, AS WELL AS THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON THE BASE AMOUNT, APPLICABLE IN 2009, OF THE POSITIONAL SALARY (REMUNERATION) OF STATE POLITICIANS, JUDGES, STATE OFFICIALS AND STATE SERVANTS, WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 20 November 2013

Vilnius

 

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court: Toma Birmontienė, Pranas Kuconis, Gediminas Mesonis, Ramutė Ruškytė, Egidijus Šileikis, Algirdas Taminskas, Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis, and Dainius Žalimas

The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1 and 531 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, at the Court’s hearing, on 11 November 2013, considered, under written procedure, constitutional justice case No. 29/2010 subsequent to the petition (No. 1B-31/2010) of a group of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether:

– Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments is not in conflict with Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as the constitutional principles of the separation of powers and a state under the rule of law;

– the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments to the effect that, during the period of the validity of this law, the benefit recipient’s compensatory salary, when applied in calculating maternity, paternity, and maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, as from 1 July 2010, may not exceed the sum equal to 4 amounts of the insured income approved by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania for the then current year, as well as Paragraph 2 of the said article, are not in conflict with Articles 23, 38, and 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as the constitutional principles of the separation of powers and a state under the rule of law;

– the provision “[t]he provisions of this article shall, as from 1 July 2010, apply to the payments provided for in Paragraph 4 of this article and the maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits awarded under the provisions of the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance valid until 30 June 2010” of Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments, as well as Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said article, are not in conflict with Articles 23, 38, and 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Article 15 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it provides that the Government of the Republic of Lithuania is commissioned to prepare and approve the description of the procedure for compensation for the reduced state social insurance pensions of old age and of lost capacity to work, is not in conflict with Item 2 of Article 67 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and insofar as, according to the petitioner, it does not provide for the mechanism of compensation for maternity, paternity, and maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, is not in conflict with Articles 23 and 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as the constitutional principles of the equality of rights of persons and a state under the rule of law;

– Article 3 (wordings of 19 December 2008 and 17 July 2009) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants is not in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

 

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

The petition of a group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner, is substantiated by the following arguments.

  1. Under the official constitutional doctrine formed by the Constitutional Court, only the regulation that is established by law ensures the stability of the legal regulation of social assistance, which implies the legal certainty and legal security of groups of most socially vulnerable persons. The Constitutional Court, in its doctrine, follows the rule that the legal regulation related to defining the content of human rights and freedoms or consolidating the guarantees of their implementation may be established only by law. Therefore, the Seimas, having commissioned the Government, by means of Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments (hereinafter—the Provisional Law), to approve the marginal amounts of social benefits, i.e. to establish the extent of the limitation of the right to maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, and having granted the right to the Government, by means of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 9, to limit the extent of the awarded and paid social benefits by changing the amount of the insured income of the then current year, has violated Article 52 of the Constitution as well the constitutional principles of the separation of powers and the hierarchy of legal acts.
  2. The right to maternity, paternity, and maternity (paternity) benefits stems from Article 52 and the provision “[f]amily, motherhood, fatherhood and childhood shall be under the protection and care of the State” of Paragraph 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution. Maternity, paternity, and maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits are the ownership protected under Article 23 of the Constitution. The duty for the state to pay, and the right of individuals to demand that not only pensions specified in the Constitution or laws but other social insurance benefits as well that have been awarded and paid to them be paid during the entire period established for their payment, stem from the provisions of Article 52 of the Constitution. The right to recalculate the already awarded social insurance benefits, which is consolidated in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 9 and Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 10 of the Provisional Law, should also be assessed as a violation of the principle of the protection of family, motherhood, and fatherhood, which is enshrined in the Constitution, since the legal regulation in question leads to legal uncertainty, the indeterminacy of granted rights, and negatively affects such socially significant and protectable values as family, motherhood, and fatherhood.
  3. The impugned legal regulation denies the duty of the state to fulfil its undertaken obligations to pay the social insurance benefits of an established amount that have been awarded on the basis of valid legal acts and violates the legitimate interests of the persons to whom such benefits have been awarded as well as the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, and legal security. Upon the establishment, by the Government, of a new amount of the insured income for the respective year and a new marginal amount of the maternity (paternity) social insurance benefit, persons to whom, pursuant to the legal acts in force at the time, social insurance benefits (for example, the maternity benefit paid during the period of pregnancy and childbirth leave) were legitimately awarded and paid in advance, will be required to return an existing overpayment. Thus, the groups of most socially vulnerable persons will face total legal uncertainty and legal insecurity, the rights acquired by these persons will be denied and their legal status will be worsened unreasonably. The legal regulation in question and the worsening of the legal status of persons is not permissible even due to extraordinary situations (an economic crisis, etc.).
  4. The time limit for the validity of the law—from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2011—as established in Article 15 of the Provisional Law, exceeds the established requirement of the constitutional institute of the budget year. The legislature has also disregarded the fact that an extraordinary economic situation may change, may linger for less than two years whilst the said provision of the law implies a longer period for reducing social benefits.
  5. The legislature was under the obligation to provide for a mechanism of compensation for the reduced maternity, paternity, and maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits—the social insurance payments as the ownership under the protection of Article 23 of the Constitution. However, unreasonably differentiating separate groups to whom social assistance is necessary, Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law provides for compensation only for the state social pensions of old age and of lost capacity to work, thereby violating the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights of persons, legitimate expectations, legal certainty, and legal security.

The establishment of the mechanism of compensation for the reduced social guarantees is a part of equal value of the system of social guarantees that may be reorganised only by means of a law, therefore, this, also, cannot be transferred for regulation to the executive or its body, by denying systematicness and consistency, which are necessary elements of law-making.

  1. An extraordinary situation in the state when the economic and financial condition of the state deteriorates considerably is the only occasion when the regulation that is unfavourable to state politicians, judges, state officials and state servants may be established, i.e. when the base amount of their positional salary (remuneration) may be reduced. In such exceptional cases, legal regulation may be corrected also by reducing payments to the extent that is necessary to ensure vitally important public interests and to protect other constitutional values; in addition, payments may be reduced only temporarily, i.e. as long as there is an extraordinary situation existing in the state, and paying heed to the principle of proportionality.

On 14 October 2009, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 1295) “On the Economic Hardship”, which, after its entry into force, resulted in preconditions for approving a lower base amount of the positional salary (remuneration) than the existing one. However, as far back as on 19 December 2008, the Seimas, without any legal basis, adopted the Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants, thereby violating the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

The impugned legal regulation has changed the person’s relation with their ownership: irrespective of a person’s will, their rights to ownership were limited to the extent that a lower base amount was applied in calculating the positional salary (remuneration), therefore, the legal regulation in question was in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution.

The right to ownership is inseparably related to the principle of legitimate expectations. The legal regulation, consolidated in the Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants, establishes, without any legitimate grounds, a lower base amount and limits the right to ownership, while denying the legitimate expectations of persons and violating the constitutional principle of legitimate expectations.

II

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court’s hearing, written explanations were received from Rimantas Jonas Dagys, a member of the Seimas, acting as a representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, in which it is maintained that the impugned provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 3, Article 9, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 10, Article 15 and Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, as well as the impugned provisions of Article 3 (wordings of 19 December 2008 and 17 July 2009) of the Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants, are not in conflict with the Constitution. The position of the representative of the party concerned is substantiated by the following arguments.

  1. State fiscal policy is inseparable from the economic condition of the state and economic processes in the state as well as in the world. In times of an economic crisis, every person must contribute to solving problems, share the existing hardships and understand that certain economic restrictions and unpopular decisions are inevitable.

The Provisional Law was prepared and adopted by taking account of the predicted growth in the deficit of the state budget and the budget of the State Social Insurance Fund (hereinafter—SSIF) as well as while implementing the objective to balance the flows of money, which is provided for in the Crisis Management Plan that is included in the Programme of the Fifteenth Government of the Republic of Lithuania. The said law aimed, at a time of economic crisis, to ensure that payments would be paid in due time, to create an opportunity to partly balance the SSIF budget as well as to stabilise the growth in the deficit of the state and SSIF budgets.

Persons, receiving payments under legal acts, have a legitimate expectation that the obligation undertaken by the state to pay these payments in full amount will be carried out. However, while taking account of the situation existing in the state, it was necessary to establish the legal regulation whereby other constitutional values would be protected, i.e. whereby,  while striking the balance between personal and public interests, sufficient funds for the timely payment of the awarded payments and for the protection of the vitally important interests of benefit recipients would be ensured.

  1. Taking account of the difficult economic condition existing in the state and complying with the requirements that stem from the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights, proportionality and social solidarity, the Provisional Law provided for the recalculation or reduction of all the social payments (rather than any one type of them) payable from the state and SSIF budgets. The Provisional Law did not reorganise the system of social guarantees; the measures established therein do not change the structure of social guarantees and are applied only temporarily.
  2. Pursuant to the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and the provision of the official constitutional doctrine that legal acts may not require the impossible (lex non cogit ad impossibilia), as well as taking account of the economic and social situation existing in the state and the duty to provide for the funds necessary for the implementation of the adopted legal act, Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law established an obligation for the Government to prepare and approve the procedure for compensation only for state social insurance pensions of old age and of lost capacity to work, i.e. to establish, first of all, the mechanism of compensation for social payments paid to the most sensitive group of participants of the social system.

If compensation had been established for all the reduced payments, such legal regulation would not have been implemented and preconditions for raising the expectations that could not be implemented properly would have been created, this could have led to an even more difficult economic situation in the state, while the raising of the funds necessary for the compensation would also have become a burden on those persons to whom the payments were reduced.

  1. The fact that the economic and financial condition of the state had deteriorated considerably was stated in the Fifteenth Government’s Programme which was approved by means of the Seimas Resolution (No. XI-52) “On the Programme of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania” of 9 December 2008; this fact was stated again in the Government Resolution (No. 1295) “On the Economic Hardship” of 14 October 2009. Upon the official statement of the considerable deterioration of the economic and financial condition of the state, while taking account of the provisions of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 20 April 2010, the approval of the reduced base amount of the positional salary (remuneration) of state politicians, judges, state officials and state servants was allowed.

III

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court’s hearing, information was received from Algimanta Pabedinskienė, Minister of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania, and Mindaugas Sinkevičius, Director of the State Social Insurance Fund Board under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

  1. The arguments set forth in the petition of a group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner, make it clear that the petitioner impugns:

– the compliance of Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Provisional Law, insofar as it was applied in approving the marginal amount of the awarded maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits subject to recalculation, with Article 52 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principles of the separation of powers and a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Article 9 of the Provisional Law, insofar as, according to the petitioner, the recalculation of the awarded maternity, paternity, and maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, which is regulated by this article, created preconditions for reducing the said benefits, with Article 23, Paragraph 2 of Article 38 and Article 52 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principles of the separation of powers and a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 10 of the Provisional Law, insofar as the recalculation of the awarded maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, which is regulated by these paragraphs, created preconditions for reducing the said benefits, with Article 23, Paragraph 2 of Article 38 and Article 52 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Article 15 of the Provisional Law with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it does not provide for any compensation for the reduced, as a result of recalculation, awarded maternity, paternity, and maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, with Article 23, Paragraph 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principles of the equality of rights of persons and a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it establishes that the Government is commissioned to prepare and approve the description of the procedure for compensation for the reduced state social insurance pensions of old age and of lost capacity to work, with Item 2 of Article 67 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Article 3 (wordings of 19 December 2008 and 17 July 2009) of the Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants with Article 23 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

  1. It should be noted that, by its ruling of 5 March 2013, the Constitutional Court, having investigated, inter alia, the compliance of Articles 9 and 10 of the Provisional Law, insofar as the recalculation of the awarded maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, which is regulated by these articles, created preconditions for reducing the said benefits, as well as the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as it does not provide for any compensation for the reduced, as a result of recalculation, awarded maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, with the Constitution, recognised that:

– the provision “[d]uring the period of the validity of this law the benefit recipient’s compensatory salary, when applied in calculating <...> as from 1 July 2010 <...> social insurance benefits of <...> maternity (paternity), may not exceed the sum equal to 4 amounts of the insured income approved by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania for the then current year” of Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Provisional Law, insofar as it had covered such awarded maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits the right to which had been acquired prior to the entry into force of this provisional law, had been in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Provisional Law, insofar as it had prescribed that the recalculated awarded, inter alia, maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits the right to which had been acquired prior to the entry into force of this provisional law, could not, until the child reached the age of one year, exceed the sum equal to 4 amounts of the insured income approved by the Government for the then current year, had been in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Paragraph 3 of Article 10 of the Provisional Law, insofar as it had prescribed that the recalculated awarded, inter alia, maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits the right to which had been acquired prior to the entry into force of this provisional law, could not, during the period when the child was from one to two years of age, exceed 75 percent of the sum equal to 4 amounts of the insured income approved by the Government for the then current year, had been in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as it did not provide for any compensation for the reduced, as a result of recalculation, awarded, inter alia, maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, was not in conflict with the Constitution.

Under Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, by means of its decision, the Constitutional Court refuses to consider petitions requesting an investigation into the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution if the compliance of the legal act with the Constitution specified in the petition has already been investigated by the Constitutional Court and the ruling on this issue given by the Constitutional Court is still in force, and, under Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the same law, if the grounds for the refusal to consider a petition have been established after the commencement of the consideration of the case during the hearing of the Constitutional Court, a decision to dismiss the case shall be adopted.

Thus, it should be held that, under Item 3 of Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the part of this case regarding the compliance, which has already been investigated by the Constitutional Court, of the provisions (that are related to the reduction of and compensation for the awarded maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits) of Article 9, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 10 and Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law with the Constitution, is to be dismissed.

  1. It should be noted that, by its ruling of 29 June 2010, the Constitutional Court, having investigated, inter alia, the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law with the Constitution, recognised that Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as it was not proposed to the Government that the description of the procedure for compensation for the state pensions reduced to a large extent be prepared and approved, was in conflict with Articles 23 and 52 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. In the same ruling it was also held that the legal regulation, consolidated in Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, should be construed as meaning that the Government was proposed to prepare and approve the procedure for compensation only for the reduced state social insurance pensions of old age and of lost capacity to work, which would not include the essential elements of compensation for pensions: bases, amounts, etc.; these elements of compensation for the reduced pensions must be established by means of a law by the legislature; if the said legal regulation is understood in this way, Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law is not in conflict with the Constitution.

In its ruling of 6 February 2012, the Constitutional Court also held that the legal regulation, consolidated in Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, should be construed as meaning,  inter alia, an obligation of the legislature to establish, in the law, the essential elements (grounds, amounts, etc.) of compensation for pensions, where the Government would be able to invoke such elements in the course of the preparation and approval of the description of the procedure for compensation for the losses incurred as a result of the reduction of state social insurance pensions of old age and of lost capacity to work; the duty of the legislature to establish, in the law, the essential elements (grounds, amounts, etc.) of compensation for the reduced pensions does not mean that these elements should be established namely in the Provisional Law, inter alia, Paragraph 4 of Article 16 thereof. By means of the said ruling, it was recognised that Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as no essential elements of compensation for the reduced state social insurance old age pensions were established by means of a law, was not in conflict with the Constitution.

Thus, it should be held that, under Item 3 of Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Law on Constitutional Court, the part of this case regarding the compliance, which has already been investigated by the Constitutional Court, of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it establishes that the Government is commissioned to prepare and approve the description of the procedure for compensation for the reduced state social insurance pensions of old age and of lost capacity to work, with the Constitution, is to be dismissed.

  1. It should be noted that, by its ruling of 1 July 2013, the Constitutional Court recognised that Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 3 of the Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants that was adopted by the Seimas on 17 July 2009, by means of which Article 3 (wording of 19 December 2008) of the Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants was amended and set forth in its new wording, insofar as the said article had established the base amount of LTL 450 of the positional salary (remuneration) of state politicians, judges, state officials, and state servants for judges, which had been applicable for the period from 1 August 2009 to 31 December 2009, had not been in conflict with the Constitution.

Thus, it should be held that, under Item 3 of Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the part of this case regarding the compliance, which has already been investigated by the Constitutional Court, of Article 3 (wording of 17 July 2009) of the Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants, insofar as it is applied in calculating the remuneration of judges during the period from 1 August 2009 to 31 December 2009, with the Constitution, is to be dismissed.

  1. It should also be noted that Article 3, impugned in the case at issue, of the Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants that was adopted by the Seimas on 19 December 2008 and came into force on 30 December 2008, was amended by Article 1 of the Law Amending Article 3 of the said Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants that came into force on 31 July 2009, was amended and set forth in its new wording. In addition, Article 3 (wordings of 19 December 2008 and 17 July 2009) of the Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants, pursuant to Article 2 of the same law, was applied in calculating the positional salaries (remunerations) of persons referred to therein and in calculating other payments provided for by legal acts only in 2009, thus, only during the period of the budget year 2009, and is no longer applicable.

5.1. Under Paragraph 4 (wording of 11 July 1996) of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the annulment of the impugned legal act shall be grounds to adopt a decision to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings. In its acts, the Constitutional Court has held on more than one occasion that the formulation “shall be grounds <...> to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings” should be construed as establishing the Constitutional Court’s right, in cases when subjects other than courts, specified in Article 106 of the Constitution, have applied to the Constitutional Court, to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings upon taking account of the circumstances of the case at issue; this also applies to cases when the impugned legal act (part thereof) has not been repealed but the legal regulation established therein has been changed (inter alia, the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 4 March 2003, 30 March 2006, 31 March 2010, and 28 May 2010), as well as to cases when the validity of legal acts has expired (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 22 December 2011).

5.2. In its rulings of 22 December 2011 and 15 February 2013, the Constitutional Court also noted that in cases when subjects other than courts, specified in Article 106 of the Constitution, inter alia, a group of not less than 1/5 of all the Members of the Seimas, had applied to the Constitutional Court, and the impugned legal act (part thereof) was equivalent to the legal acts (parts thereof) that were no longer in force, since the established term of application thereof was applied on a temporary basis and the relations regulated by it had ended, even though that act (part thereof) had not been officially recognised as invalid, the Constitutional Court had the right to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings upon taking account of the circumstances of the case at issue.

5.3. In this context it needs to be mentioned that the Constitutional Court invoked the provision of the Law on the Constitutional Court to the effect that the annulment of the impugned legal act is grounds to adopt a decision to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings when it held that the matter of dispute virtually disappeared in the respective case (since a new legal regulation rather than the impugned one had already been applied) (inter alia, the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 28 March 2006 and 22 December 2011). Thus, it should be held that, under Paragraph 4 (wording of 11 July 1996) of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the part of this case regarding the compliance of Article 3 (wordings of 19 December 2008 and 17 July 2009) of the Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants that is no longer in force (equivalent to legal acts (parts thereof) that are no longer in force), with the Constitution, is to be dismissed.

  1. It should be noted that the impugned Article 15 “The Validity of the Law” of the Provisional Law was amended, inter alia, by means of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 15 of the Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments that was adopted by the Seimas on 2 July 2010 and came into force on 20 July 2010, which, inter alia, supplemented the said article with Paragraphs 2 and 3, and also by means of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 15 of the Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments that was adopted on 20 December 2011 and came into force on 28 December 2011, which, as a result of amending Paragraph 1 of the said article, extended the validity of certain provisions (not applicable to maternity, paternity, and maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits) of this law, which are not impugned in the case at issue. Under Article 15 (wordings of 2 July 2010 and 20 December 2011) of the Provisional Law, the said law, save Article 16 thereof, comes into force on 1 January 2010 and is in force, with respect to maternity, paternity, and maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits (referred to in Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the said law), until 31 December 2011 (Paragraph 1); as from 1 July 2011, the provisions of Articles 9 and 10 of the said law no longer apply to the newly awarded social insurance benefits and the maternity (paternity) payments payable from the state budget (Paragraph 2); social insurance benefits and the maternity (paternity) payments payable from the state budget, calculated under the provisions of the said law prior to 1 July 2011, are paid until the end of the period of their payment (Paragraph 3). This article has neither subsequently been amended nor supplemented in the aspect impugned in the case at issue.

It should also be noted that, under Article 15 (wording of 9 December 2009 with subsequent amendments and supplements) of the Provisional Law, in the constitutional justice case at issue the impugned provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Provisional Law, which is related to the recalculation of the awarded maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, and the impugned provisions of Article 9, which are related to the recalculation of the awarded, inter alia, maternity and paternity social insurance benefits, were in force temporarily, i.e. from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2011, and are no longer in force.

6.1. It has been mentioned that, under Paragraph 4 (wording of 11 July 1996) of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court has a right, in cases when subjects other than courts, specified in Article 106 of the Constitution, have applied to the Constitutional Court, to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings upon having taken account of the circumstances of the case at issue, not only in cases when the impugned legal act (part thereof) is repealed but also in cases when the impugned legal act (part thereof) has not been repealed but the legal regulation established therein has been changed as well as when the validity of legal acts has expired.

6.2. Thus, it should be held that, under Paragraph 4 (wording of 11 July 1996) of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the part of this case regarding the compliance of the impugned provisions that are no longer in force (equivalent to legal acts (parts thereof) that are no longer in force) of Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Provisional Law, which are related to the recalculation of the awarded maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, also, of Article 9 of the Provisional Law, which are related to the recalculation of the awarded maternity and paternity social insurance benefits, as well as of Article 15 of the Provisional Law, with the Constitution, is to be dismissed.

  1. In the light of the foregoing arguments, respectively, under Item 3 of Paragraph 1, Paragraph 3, and Paragraph 4 (wording of 11 July 1996) of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, one should dismiss the part of this case regarding:

– the compliance of Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Provisional Law, insofar as it was applied in approving the marginal amount of the awarded maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits subject to recalculation, with Article 52 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principles of the separation of powers and a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Article 9 of the Provisional Law, insofar as, according to the petitioner, the recalculation of the awarded maternity, paternity, and maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, which is regulated by this article, created preconditions for reducing the said benefits, with Article 23, Paragraph 2 of Article 38, and Article 52 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principles of the separation of powers and a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 10 of the Provisional Law, insofar as the recalculation of the awarded maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, which is regulated by these paragraphs, created preconditions for reducing the said benefits, with Article 23, Paragraph 2 of Article 38, and Article 52 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Article 15 of the Provisional Law with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it does not provide for any compensation for the reduced, as a result of recalculation, awarded maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, with Article 23 and Paragraph 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principles of the equality of rights of persons and a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it provides that the Government is commissioned to prepare and approve the description of the procedure for compensation for the reduced state social insurance pensions of old age and of lost capacity to work, with Item 2 of Article 67 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Article 3 (wordings of 19 December 2008 and 17 July 2009) of the Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants with Article 23 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

  1. Thus, in the constitutional justice case at issue the Constitutional Court will investigate the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it does not provide for any compensation for the reduced, as a result of recalculation, awarded maternity and paternity social insurance benefits, with Article 23 and Paragraph 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principles of the equality of rights of persons and a state under the rule of law.

II

On the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments with Article 23 and Paragraph 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principles of the equality of rights of persons and a state under the rule of law.

  1. It has been mentioned that in the constitutional justice case at issue the petitioner impugns, inter alia, the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it does not provide for any compensation for the reduced, as a result of recalculation, awarded maternity and paternity social insurance benefits, with Article 23 and Paragraph 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principles of the equality of rights of persons and a state under the rule of law.
  2. Article 16 “Proposals to the Government of the Republic of Lithuania” of the Provisional Law prescribes:

“1. The Government of the Republic of Lithuania or the institutions authorised by it shall, by 1 January 2010, prepare and adopt the legal acts necessary for the implementation of this law.

  1. After assessing the indicators of the Lithuanian economy that determine the Lithuanian economic development, as well as the budgetary positions of the State of the Republic of Lithuania and the State Social Insurance Fund, the Government of the Republic of Lithuania or the institutions authorised by it, shall, by 1 July 2010, submit proposals to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania regarding the time limit for the validity of the said law.
  2. The Government of the Republic of Lithuania shall, by 1 March 2010, approve the conception of the reorganisation of the social insurance and pensions system.
  3. The Government of the Republic of Lithuania shall, by 1 July 2010, prepare and approve the description of the procedure for compensation for the reduced state social insurance pensions of old age and of lost capacity to work”.

Thus, through the legal regulation, consolidated in the impugned Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, it is proposed that the Government prepare and approve the description of the procedure for compensation for the reduced state social insurance pensions of old age and of lost capacity to work, while it is not proposed that the Government prepare and approve, inter alia, the description of the procedure for compensation for the awarded maternity and paternity social insurance benefits that, according to the petitioner, have been recalculated and reduced under the said law. Consequently, the impugned legal regulation should be construed as not establishing the obligation of the legislature to compensate for the aforementioned benefits that, according to the petitioner, were reduced.

It should be mentioned that the provisions which would provide for compensation for the awarded maternity and paternity social insurance benefits that, according to the petitioner, have been recalculated and reduced under the said law, exist neither in the other paragraphs of Article 16 of the Provisional Law nor in the other articles of the said law.

When deciding whether the obligation of the legislature to compensate for, according to the petitioner, the reduced awarded maternity and paternity social insurance benefits should have been established in Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, it is important to elucidate whether the said benefits have been reduced and, if so, how they have been reduced.

  1. On 9 December 2009, the Seimas adopted the Provisional Law that came into force on 1 January 2010, save Article 16 thereof, that came into force on 24 December 2009.

In its rulings of 6 February 2012 and 5 March 2013, adopted in the constitutional justice cases in which the compliance of, inter alia, the provisions of the Provisional Law with the Constitution was investigated, the Constitutional Court noted that the Provisional Law, as held in the Preamble thereto, had been adopted while seeking to limit the growth in the deficit of the state budget and the budget of the State Social Insurance Fund, which had been caused by an economic crisis; in this law, while taking account of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state and while seeking to protect, as much as possible, the groups of socially sensitive persons, the legislature laid down such a procedure for the recalculation and payment of social payments that implied the reduction of the awarded social payments.

The Provisional Law laid down the procedure for the recalculation of social payments, inter alia, maternity and paternity social insurance benefits, as well as the procedure for the establishment of a new maximum amount of the compensatory salary applied in calculating the said benefits (Article 1 “The Purpose and Application of the Law” (Paragraph 1)); this law was applied to persons who received, inter alia, maternity and paternity social insurance benefits awarded and paid to them under the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance (Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 1).

As mentioned before, the provisions of the Provisional Law, with respect to, inter alia, the awarded maternity and paternity social insurance benefits, under Article 15 (wording of 9 December 2009 with subsequent amendments and/or supplements) thereof, were in force until 31 December 2011 and are no longer in force. It should be mentioned that, in its ruling of 6 February 2012, the Constitutional Court noted that, under Article 15 (wordings of 9 December 2009, 2 July 2010, and 20 December 2011) of the Provisional Law, the legal regulation, consolidated in the said law and established upon the occurrence of an extraordinary situation in the state when, inter alia, due to a particularly difficult economic and financial situation, it was impossible to accumulate the amount of funds necessary to pay old age pensions, was applied temporarily, namely, until 31 December 2011.

Thus, the purpose of the Provisional Law is, due to a particularly difficult economic and financial situation of the state, to establish a temporary procedure for the recalculation and payment of, inter alia, maternity and paternity social insurance benefits.

  1. It should be mentioned that, under the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance, maternity social insurance benefits shall be awarded and paid to insured women during the period of pregnancy and childbirth leave (Item 1 (wording of 18 December 2008) of Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 (wording of 4 December 2007) of Article 18) and in accordance with the submitted certificate of pregnancy and childbirth leave (Item 1 (wording of 18 December 2008) of Paragraph 5 of Article 5); the amount of the said benefit is equal to 100 percent of the benefit recipient’s compensatory salary (Paragraph 1 (wording of 4 December 2007) of Article 18).

4.1. Article 9 “The Establishment of a New Maximum Amount of the Compensatory Salary For Calculating Social Insurance Benefits” of the Provisional Law, inter alia, prescribes:

– as from 1 July 2010, until the end of the validity of this law, the benefit recipient’s compensatory salary, when applied, inter alia, in calculating maternity social insurance benefits, is limited up to the sum equal to 4 amounts of the insured income approved by the Government for the respective year; with respect to maternity social insurance benefits, this provision shall not apply, for the period of pregnancy and childbirth leave, to the persons who acquired the right to receive the said benefit prior to 30 June 2010 (Paragraph 1);

– upon the approval of a new amount of the insured income of the respective year, all social insurance benefits awarded and paid prior to that date shall, for the period starting from the beginning of the application of the new amount of the insured income, be recalculated by applying the said amount (Paragraph 2).

4.1.1. It should be noted that, after introducing, in Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Provisional Law, the exception with respect to the maternity social insurance benefits the right to which had been acquired prior to 30 June 2010, a new maximum amount of the compensatory salary applied in calculating social insurance benefits—the sum equal to 4 amounts of the insured income approved by the Government for the then current year (which was lower than the maximum amount of the compensatory salary applied in calculating the said benefits—the sum equal to 5 amounts of the insured income approved by the Government for the then current year valid in the month of the acquisition of the right to a respective benefit, as established in Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 December 2008) of Article 6 of the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance that was applied until 1 July 2010), as provided for in the said paragraph, was not applied.

It should also be noted that Item 73 (wording of 23 December 2009) of the Regulations on Social Insurance Benefits of Sickness and Maternity, as approved by government resolution No. 86 of 25 January 2001, which is designed to implement Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Provisional Law, inter alia, prescribed that during the period of the validity of the Provisional Law “<...> the compensatory salary, when applied in calculating the amounts of <...> maternity <…> benefits <...>, may not exceed the sum equal to 4 amounts of the insured income approved by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania for the then current year: <...> 73.2. for the persons who acquired the right to maternity benefits on 1 July 2010 and later. The provision regarding the sum equal to 4 amounts of the insured income of the then current year shall not apply to the persons who acquired the right to maternity benefits prior to 30 June 2010.”

Consequently, the impugned legal regulation, consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Provisional Law, if construed in the context of the aforementioned legal regulation, did not create preconditions, as from 1 July 2010, for recalculating and reducing the awarded maternity social insurance benefits the right to which had been acquired prior to 30 June 2010.

4.1.2. It has been mentioned that, under Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Provisional Law, upon the approval of a new amount of the insured income of the respective year, all social insurance benefits awarded and paid prior to that date were, for the period starting from the beginning of the application of the new amount of insured income, recalculated by applying the said amount.

4.1.2.1. In this context it should be noted that the explanatory note to the Republic of Lithuania’s Draft Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Benefits and the Increase of the Rate of Social Insurance Contributions (No. XIP-1238) indicates that it is proposed to establish in the law that the provisions thereof regulating the recalculation of social insurance benefits, inter alia, insofar as this is related to a new amount of the insured income of the then current year (LT 1,170), would be applied to “the payments awarded prior to the entry into force of this law (i.e. prior to 1 January 2010), with the exception of the maternity benefits that have already been paid, which are usually awarded and paid in advance for the entire period of pregnancy and  postnatal period”. Thus, the Provisional Law did not aim at establishing such legal regulation that would create preconditions for recalculating the awarded maternity social insurance benefits.

4.1.2.2. It should also be noted that Item 74 (wording of 23 December 2009) of the Regulations on Social Insurance Benefits of Sickness and Maternity (hereinafter also referred to as the Regulations), as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 86) “On the Approval of the Regulations on Social Insurance Benefits of Sickness and Maternity” of 25 January 2001, which is designed to implement Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Provisional Law, inter alia, prescribed that “upon the approval of a new amount of the insured income of the respective year, all benefits awarded and paid prior to that date shall, for the period starting from the beginning of the application of the new amount of this insured income, be recalculated by applying the said amount”; however, the same item of these Regulations also established that “with respect to maternity social insurance benefits, this provision shall not apply, for the period of pregnancy and childbirth leave, to the persons who acquired the right to receive the said benefit prior to the change of the amount of the insured income”.

In addition, the third paragraph of Item 51 (wording of 26 August 2009) of the said Regulations prescribed that “the maternity benefit is awarded and paid, in accordance with the certificate of pregnancy and childbirth leave, for the entire period of pregnancy and childbirth leave, regardless of the actual number of days that have passed prior to childbirth”.

Thus, the aforementioned legal regulation created preconditions for awarding and paying maternity social insurance benefits to the persons, who had acquired the right to the said benefit prior to 31 December 2009, for the entire period of pregnancy and childbirth leave before the application (1 January 2010) of a newly approved amount of the insured income of the then current year that led to the recalculation of social insurance benefits.

Consequently, under the legal regulation established by the Government for the purposes of implementing Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Provisional Law, maternity social insurance benefits, awarded and paid outright for the entire period of pregnancy and childbirth leave, the right to which had been acquired prior to 31 December 2009, were not recalculated for the period starting from 1 January 2010 by applying a new approved amount of the insured income of the then current year.

4.1.2.3. Thus, the conclusion should be drawn that, Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Provisional Law, if construed in the context of the aforementioned legal regulation, created no preconditions for recalculating and reducing, as from 1 January 2010, the awarded maternity social insurance benefits the right to which had been acquired prior to 31 December 2009.

4.2. It should be noted that the information submitted in the case at issue by the Minister of Social Security and Labour as well as by the Director of the State Social Insurance Fund Board under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour also makes it is clear that the awarded maternity benefits (which are awarded and paid outright for the entire period of pregnancy and childbirth leave) were recalculated (reduced), under Article 9 of the Provisional Law, neither as from 1 January 2010 nor as from 1 July 2010, for the persons who had acquired the right to this benefit prior to the said dates.

4.3. It should be noted that, save Article 9 of the Provisional Law, this law did not provide for other provisions related to the reduction of, as a result of recalculation, maternity social insurance benefits.

4.4. Thus, in view of the fact that the awarded maternity benefits (which are awarded and paid outright for the entire period of pregnancy and childbirth leave) were recalculated (reduced), under Article 9 of the Provisional Law, neither as from 1 January 2010 nor as from 1 July 2010, for the persons who had acquired the right to this benefit prior to the said dates, it should be held that the matter of investigation is absent in the part of the case at issue regarding the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it does not provide for any compensation for the reduced, as a result of recalculation, awarded maternity social insurance benefits, with the Constitution.

4.5. The fact that the matter of investigation is absent in the case regarding the petition of the petitioner means that the petition does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court (the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 6 May 2003 and 13 May 2003, its ruling of 13 May 2014, its decision of 8 August 2006, as well as its rulings of 20 December 2007 and 20 March 2008). Under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, by means of its decision, the Constitutional Court refuses to consider petitions requesting an investigation into the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution if the petition does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, and, under Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, if the grounds for the refusal to consider a petition have been established after the commencement of the consideration of the case during the hearing of the Constitutional Court, a decision to dismiss the case shall be adopted.

4.6. Thus, it should be held that, under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the part of this case regarding the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it does not provide for any compensation for the reduced, as a result of recalculation, awarded maternity social insurance benefits, with Article 23 and Paragraph 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principles of the equality of rights of persons and a state under the rule of law, is to be dismissed.

  1. It has been mentioned that in the constitutional justice case at issue the Constitutional Court is investigating the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as, according to the petitioner, it does not provide for any compensation for the reduced, as a result of recalculation, awarded paternity social insurance benefits, with Article 23 and Paragraph 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principles of the equality of rights of persons and a state under the rule of law.

It has been mentioned that the impugned Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law provides that “the Government of the Republic of Lithuania shall, by 1 July 2010, prepare and approve the description of the procedure for compensation for the reduced state social insurance pensions of old age and of lost capacity to work”.

As mentioned before, through the legal regulation, consolidated in impugned Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, it is not proposed that the Government prepare and approve, inter alia, the description of the procedure for compensation for the awarded paternity social insurance benefits that, according to the petitioner, have been recalculated and reduced under the said law. Thus, the impugned legal regulation should be construed as not establishing the obligation of the legislature to compensate for such, according to the petitioner, reduced benefits.

5.1. It should be mentioned that, under the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance, paternity social insurance benefits shall be awarded and paid to insured persons during their paternity leave until the child reaches the age of one month (Item 2 (wording of 18 December 2008) of Paragraph 3 of Article 5, Item 2 (wording of 18 December 2008) of Paragraph 5, and Article 182 (wording of 8 June 2006)); the amount of the said benefit is equal to 100 percent of the benefit recipient’s compensatory salary (Article 183 (wording of 4 December 2007)).

It also needs to be mentioned that the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance prescribed that, inter alia, paternity social insurance benefits were calculated on the basis of the compensatory salary, i.e. the sum of the insured person’s insured income (Paragraph 3 (wording of 4 December 2007) of Article 3), which, “when applied in calculating benefits, may not exceed the sum equal to 5 amounts of the insured income approved by the Government for the then current year valid in the month of the acquisition of the right to a respective benefit” (Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 December 2008) of Article 6).

Thus, pursuant to the said provisions of the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance, the paternity social insurance benefits that are awarded and paid to insured persons during their paternity leave until the child reaches the age of one month were calculated on the basis of the benefit recipient’s compensatory salary; at the same time, the amount of the compensatory salary applied in calculating the said benefit was limited up to the sum equal to 5 amounts of the government-approved insured income of the then current year valid in the month of the acquisition of the right to the benefit. In those cases when the compensatory salary of the recipient of the paternity social insurance benefit exceeded the maximum amount of the compensatory salary fixed by law, such a recipient was awarded and paid the paternity social insurance benefit calculated on the basis of the maximum amount of the compensatory salary. Consequently, under the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance, the maximum amount of the compensatory salary and the corresponding maximum possible amount of the paternity social insurance benefits depended, inter alia, upon the government-approved amount of the insured income (the sum thereof) of the then current year.

5.2. In this context the provisions of legal acts that regulate the procedure for the calculation and approval of the amount of the insured income of the respective year should also be mentioned.

5.2.1. Paragraph 7 (wording of 8 June 2006) of Article 3 “Definitions as Used in This Law” of the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance prescribes: “‘Insured income of the current year’ means income calculated on the basis of the methodology approved by the State Social Insurance Fund Council. The procedure for the calculation and approval of this income shall be established by the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions”.

Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on State Social Insurance Pensions (wording of 19 May 2005) prescribes: “The insured income of the current year shall, at least once per year and on the recommendation of the State Social Insurance Fund Council, be approved by the Government, which also establishes the beginning of the application of this income. The insured income of the current year shall be calculated according to the methodology approved by the State Social Insurance Fund Council, by taking into account the revenue and expenditure of the budget of the State Social Insurance Fund of the respective year or of the respective period of the year. <...>”

Thus, Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions (wording of 19 May 2005) provides for the duty of the Government to approve, at least once per year and on the recommendation of the State Social Insurance Fund Council, the amount of the insured income of the respective year, which depends upon the revenue and expenditure of the budget of the State Social Insurance Fund of the respective year or of the respective period of the year.

5.2.2. It should be noted that, through the Government Resolution (No. 1367) “On Approving the Amount of the Insured Income of the Year 2009” of 30 December 2008, the amount of the insured income of 2009, which was equal to LTL 1,488, was approved.

5.3. Article 9 “The Establishment of a New Maximum Amount of the Compensatory Salary For Calculating Social Insurance Benefits” of the Provisional Law, inter alia, prescribes:

– as from 1 July 2010 until the end of the validity of this law, the benefit recipient’s compensatory salary, when applied, inter alia, in calculating paternity social insurance benefits, is limited up to the sum equal to 4 amounts of the insured income approved by the Government for the respective year (Paragraph 1);

– upon the approval of a new amount of the insured income of the respective year, all social insurance benefits, thus, paternity social insurance benefits as well, awarded and paid prior to that date, shall, for the period starting from the beginning of the application of the new amount of the insured income, be recalculated by applying the said amount (Paragraph 2).

Having compared the legal regulation consolidated in Article 9 of the Provisional Law with the one consolidated in the said provisions of the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance, which established the procedure for the calculation of paternity social insurance benefits, inter alia, the maximum amount of the compensatory salary applied in calculating the said benefits, it is clear that the legal regulation regulating the procedure for the calculation of paternity social insurance benefits was, through Article 9 of the Provisional Law, provisionally changed in the following way:

– under Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Provisional Law, inter alia, the paternity social insurance benefits calculated under the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance by applying the government-approved amount of the insured income of the then current year valid in the month of the acquisition of the right to the benefit, had, during the period of the validity of the Provisional Law, to be recalculated and paid by applying a newly approved amount of the insured income of the then current year, irrespective of the amount of the insured income of the then current year valid in the month of the acquisition of the right to the benefit;

– under Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Provisional Law, the maximum amount of the compensatory salary applied, inter alia, in calculating paternity social insurance benefits, as established in the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance, was, as from 1 July 2010, temporarily reduced (for the period of the validity of the Provisional Law), i.e. it was established that the compensatory salary was limited up to the sum equal to 4 amounts of the insured income approved by the Government for the then current year (instead of the sum equal to 5 such amounts, as established in the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance).

5.4. It should also be noted that, on 23 December 2009, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 1771) “On Approving the Amount of the Insured Income of the Year 2010, the Marginal Amount of the Maternity (Paternity) Social Insurance Benefit, and the Marginal Amount of the State Pension” that came into force on 1 January 2010. Through Item 1.1 of the said resolution, it approved the amount of the insured income of 2010 equalling LTL 1,170, and, through Items 2.1 and 3.1 thereof, it established that the insured income of 2010, specified in Item 1.1 of the said resolution, was applied, as from 1 January 2010, in implementing the said provisions of the Provisional Law. Thus, through Item 1.1 of government resolution No. 1771 of 23 December 2009, a lower (equal to LTL 1,170 instead of LTL 1,488 of the amount of the insured income of 2009) amount of the insured income of the then current year was approved, which was, as from 1 January 2010, applied, inter alia, in implementing the said provisions of the Provisional Law.

In this context it needs to be mentioned that, in its ruling of 5 March 2013, the Constitutional Court, inter alia, after noting that the Government, while approving, through Item 1.1 of the said resolution, the amount of the insured income of 2010, paid heed to a particularly difficult economic and financial situation existing in the state and implemented its duty, established in Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of Law on State Social Insurance Pensions (wording of 19 May 2005), recognised that the said item of the government resolution was not in conflict with the Constitution.

It should also be noted that, by the Government Resolution (No. 210) “On Approving the Amount of the Insured Income of the Year 2011, the Marginal Amount of the Maternity (Paternity) Social Insurance Benefit, and the Marginal Amount of the State Pension” of 23 February 2011, the same amount (equal to LTL 1,170) of the insured income of 2011 was approved. Consequently, during the period of the validity of the Provisional Law (this law, as mentioned before, was valid with respect to the awarded and paid paternity social insurance benefits until 31 December 2011), the amount of the insured income approved by the Government for the then current year did not change.

5.5. To summarise the above, it should be noted that, under Article 9 of the Provisional Law:

– during the period from 1 January 2010, a new reduced amount (equal to LTL 1,170) of the insured income approved by the Government for 2010 was applied also in recalculating those paternity social insurance benefits the right to which had been acquired prior to that date and which had already been calculated by applying the amount (equal to LTL 1,488) of the insured income of the then current year valid in the month of the acquisition of the right to those benefits; the latter amount was approved by the Government while implementing the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance and the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions;

– during the period from 1 July 2010, the amount of the compensatory salary applied in calculating all paternity social insurance benefits, thus, also, the benefits the right to which had been acquired prior to that date, was limited up to the sum equal to 4 amounts of the insured income newly approved by the Government for the then current year, which expressed the maximum amount of the compensatory salary applied in calculating the said benefits (instead of the sum equal to 5 amounts of the insured income newly approved by the Government for the then current year, which, as from 1 January 2010 until 30 June 2010, was equated to the maximum amount of the compensatory salary by the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance).

5.6. It should be mentioned that, under Article 183 (wording of 4 December 2007) of the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance, the paternity social insurance benefit shall be calculated and paid under the procedure established by the government-approved Regulations on Social Insurance Benefits of Sickness and Maternity.

It has been mentioned that, on 25 January 2001, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 86) “On the Approval of the Regulations on Social Insurance Benefits of Sickness and Maternity”, by means of which it approved the Regulations on Social Insurance Benefits of Sickness and Maternity. The Regulations have been amended and/or supplemented on more than one occasion, inter alia, by the Government Resolution (No. 957) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 86) ‘On the Approval of the Regulations on Social Insurance Benefits of Sickness and Maternity’ of 25 January 2001” of 27 September 2006 that came into force on 1 October 2006, by means of which the said Regulations were, inter alia, supplemented with Chapter V1 “The Paternity Benefit”, which establishes the procedure for awarding and paying the paternity social insurance benefit, and also by the Resolution (No. 1778) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 86) ‘On the Approval of the Regulations on Social Insurance Benefits of Sickness and Maternity’ of 25 January 2001” of 23 December 2009 that came into force on 1 January 2010, by means of which the said Regulations were supplemented with Chapter IX “The Provisions on the Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments”, whilst Items 73.3 and 74 (wording of 23 December 2009) of the Regulations set forth therein implement, inter alia, the provisions of Article 9 of the Provisional Law that are significant in the aspect under investigation in the constitutional justice case at issue.

5.6.1. In Item 422 (wording of 27 September 2006 with subsequent amendments and/or supplements) and Item 423 (wording of 26 August 2009 with subsequent amendments and/or supplements) of the Regulations it was and is established that the paternity social insurance benefit shall be paid after the period of paternity leave ends. Thus, the said benefit is paid to the person, who has acquired the right to the paternity social insurance benefit, after the period of paternity leave ends.

5.6.2. Item 73.3 (wording of 23 December 2009) of the Regulations, inter alia, establishes that, during the period of the validity of the Provisional Law, the compensatory salary, when applied, inter alia, in calculating the amounts of paternity social insurance benefits, is limited up to the sum equal to 4 amounts of the insured income approved by the Government for the then current year: “for persons who acquired the right to the paternity <...> benefits on 1 July 2010 and later. The compensatory salary, when applied in calculating benefits for the persons who acquired the right to paternity <...> benefits prior to 30 June 2010 and to whom the payment of these benefits continues after 1 July 2010, shall, as from the latter date, be recalculated in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Provisional Law”.

It should be noted that the Government Resolution (No. 1293) “On Amending the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 86) ‘On the Approval of the Regulations on Social Insurance Benefits of Sickness and Maternity’ of 25 January 2001” of 8 September 2010 that came into force on 12 September 2010 amended Item 73.3 (wording of 23 December 2009) of the Regulations, however, the legal regulation consolidated therein did not change in the aspect significant in the constitutional justice case at issue.

Thus, Item 73.3 (wordings of 23 December 2009 and 8 September 2010) of the Regulations, while implementing Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Provisional Law, inter alia, prescribed that, as from 1 July 2010, the compensatory salary for the persons who had acquired the right to paternity social insurance benefits prior to 30 June 2010 and to whom the payment of those benefits continued after 1 July 2010 was, as from the latter date, recalculated in accordance with Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Provisional Law under which, as mentioned before, as from 1 July 2010, the amount of the compensatory salary applied in calculating all paternity social insurance benefits (inter alia, those the right to which had been acquired prior to that date) was limited up to the sum (lower than the one established prior to that date) equal to 4 amounts of the insured income newly approved by the Government for the then current year, which expressed the maximum amount of the compensatory salary applied in calculating the said benefits.

5.6.3. Item 74 (wording of 23 December 2009) of the Regulations, inter alia, prescribes: “Upon the approval of a new amount of the insured income of the respective year, all benefits awarded and paid prior to that date shall, for the period starting from the beginning of the application of the new amount of this insured income, be recalculated by applying the said amount.”

Thus, Item 74 (wording of 23 December 2009) of the Regulations, while implementing the analogous legal regulation consolidated in Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Provisional Law, prescribes that, inter alia, the awarded and paid paternity social insurance benefits, the compensatory salary of the recipients of which exceeds the maximum amount of the compensatory salary applied in calculating the said benefits, shall be recalculated by applying a new (lower than the one established prior to that date) government-approved amount  of the insured income of the then current year (LTL 1,170).

5.6.4. To sum up the legal regulation consolidated in Item 423 (wording of 26 August 2009 with subsequent amendments and/or supplements), Item 73.3 (wordings of 23 August 2009 and 8 September 2010 with subsequent amendments and/or supplements), and Item 74  (wording of 23 December 2009) of the Regulations, it should be noted that through the said legal regulation the provisions of Article 9 of the Provisional Law were implemented and, inter alia, preconditions were created, during the period from 1 January 2010 until 1 July 2010, respectively, for reducing, as a result of recalculation, the paternity social insurance benefits (part thereof) which are paid after the period of paternity leave ends and the right to which was acquired, inter alia, prior to the said dates.

5.7. Thus, the legal regulation consolidated in Article 9 of the Provisional Law, if construed in the context of the aforementioned legal regulation, inter alia, created preconditions for:

– calculating and awarding, during the period from 1 January 2010, those paternity social insurance benefits (part thereof) of a lower amount the right to which had been acquired prior to 31 December 2009 and the compensatory salary of the recipients of which was higher than the new maximum amount of the compensatory salary that was calculated on the basis of a new (lower than the one established prior to that date) government-approved amount of the insured income of the then current year, i.e. the sum equal to 5 amounts of this insured income that was applied as from 1 January 2010;

– calculating and awarding, during the period from 1 July 2010, those paternity social insurance benefits (part thereof) of a lower amount the right to which had been acquired prior to 30 June 2010 and the compensatory salary of the recipients of which was higher than the new (lower than the one established prior to that date) maximum amount of the compensatory salary, i.e. the sum equal to 4 amounts of the insured income of the then current year.

5.8. In this context, it should also be noted that the Provisional Law did (does) not contain any provisions pursuant to which the amount of the paternity social insurance benefit, i.e. 100 percent of the amount of the benefit recipient’s compensatory salary, established in Article 183 (wording of 4 December 2007) of the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance, would be reduced. Thus, the amount of the awarded and paid paternity benefits that were not recalculated and paid under Article 9 of the Provisional Law (the recipients’ compensatory salary that did not exceed the maximum amount applied in calculating the said benefits) has remained unchanged.

  1. While deciding whether Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as it does not provide for the obligation of the legislature to compensate for the reduced, as a result of recalculation, paternity social insurance benefits the right to which was acquired prior to their reduction, is not in conflict with Article 23 and Paragraph 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution, the constitutional principles of the equality of rights of persons and a state under the rule of law, it should be noted that, as mentioned before, the legal regulation consolidated in Article 9 of the Provisional Law, inter alia, created preconditions for calculating and awarding, during the periods from 1 July 2010 and from 1 January 2010, those paternity social insurance benefits (part thereof) of a lower amount the right to which had been acquired prior to the said dates, i.e. prior to their reduction, and the compensatory salary of the recipients of which was higher than the new (reduced) maximum amounts of the compensatory salary.

6.1. In this context, it should be mentioned that, in its rulings of 27 February 2012 and 5 March 2013, the Constitutional Court, while disclosing the constitutional aspects in relation to the care and support provided by the state to families raising and bringing up children at home, inter alia, held the following:

– the Constitution does not establish any grounds, conditions, and length of leave granted for raising and bringing up children at home, nor any amounts of the financial support to be rendered during such leave—this should be established by the legislature, by paying heed to the norms and principles of the Constitution, inter alia, the constitutional imperatives of a state under the rule of law, justice, reasonableness, proportionality, the protection of acquired rights and legitimate expectations, legal certainty, legal security, the equality of rights, the balance among constitutional values, and social harmony;

– the capabilities of society and the state should be taken into account when regulating by law the relations of support given to the families that raised and brought up children at home;

– when implementing, under Paragraph 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution, the constitutional obligation of the state to create a favourable environment for the family, motherhood, fatherhood, and childhood, various forms of the protection of, and support to, these constitutional values could be developed.

In its ruling of 5 March 2013, the Constitutional Court also held the following:

– when providing support for families raising and bringing up children at home, the state must observe the constitutional principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, legal security, the equality of rights, and proportionality also in the event of the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state;

– persons who, under the law, have acquired the right to the financial support of the amount established by law during leave granted for raising and bringing up children at home have no legal expectation that that support will not be reduced upon the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state, however, they have a legitimate expectation that in the event of the reduction of the said support upon the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state, inter alia, the constitutional principles of the equality of rights and proportionality will be observed;

– in exceptional cases, while reducing, upon the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state, the financial support rendered in an established amount during leave granted for raising and bringing up children at home, a duty arises for the legislature to establish an even and non-discriminatory extent of the reduction of such granted financial support, ensuring that the said support is reduced so that the previously established (prior to the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state) proportions of the amounts of that support are not violated;

– the financial support provided for by law rendered during leave granted for raising and bringing up children at home, by its nature, temporary (time-limited) character and purpose, differs from the pensions guaranteed in Article 52 of the Constitution, as well as from the other payments of pensionary maintenance provided for by law, where these payments have certain aspects characteristic of the ownership right according to Article 23 of the Constitution; the said financial support is a targeted one, it should be linked to a concrete period of raising and bringing up a child at home and it depends on the capabilities of the state and society; thus, the right acquired under law to the financial support of an amount provided for by law during leave granted for raising and bringing up children at home could not be equated to the right to the pensions guaranteed in Article 52 of the Constitution, nor with the right acquired under law to any other pensionary maintenance payment provided for by law, both of which have certain aspects characteristic of the ownership right according to Article 23 of the Constitution;

– the peculiarities of financial support rendered during leave granted for raising and bringing up children at home—its nature, temporary (time-limited) character, and purpose—implies that, upon a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state and in the event of the necessity, arising due to the said situation, to temporarily reduce the aforesaid support with a view to ensuring certain vitally important interests of society and the state as well as protecting other constitutional values, no duty arises for the legislature to provide for compensation for the losses incurred as a result of the reduction of the aforesaid support, while the reduction itself does not deny the essence of the right acquired under law to the financial support of an amount provided for by law during leave granted for raising and bringing up children at home.

6.2. It should be noted that paternity social insurance benefits are targeted time-limited financial support rendered during leave granted for raising and bringing up children at home, i.e. during paternity leave, which is linked to a concrete period of raising and bringing up a child at home (one month after they are born) and depends on the capabilities of the state and society.

6.3. As mentioned before, the Provisional Law, inter alia, Article 9 thereof, which established the procedure for the recalculation and payment of social payments that implied a temporary reduction of the awarded social payments and, inter alia, created preconditions for reducing, as a result of recalculation, the paternity social insurance benefits (part thereof) the right to which had been acquired prior to their reduction, was adopted in order to limit the growth in the deficit of the state budget and the budget of the State Social Insurance Fund, which had been caused by the economic crisis. Thus, while establishing such legal regulation, the legislature took into account the extraordinary situation existing in the state, in which, due to a particularly difficult economic and financial situation, it was impossible to raise such an amount of funds that was necessary to render the financial support provided for by law during leave granted for raising and bringing up children at home.

6.4. It should also be noted that the legal regulation, consolidated in the provisions of Article 9 of the Provisional Law, created preconditions for reducing, as a result of recalculation, paternity social insurance benefits (part thereof) evenly for all the recipients of the said benefits who had acquired the right to them prior to their reduction and whose compensatory salary was higher than the new (reduced) maximum amounts of the compensatory salary; in addition, the said benefits (part thereof) were reduced only during the period starting from the beginning of the application of the relevant provisions of the law, which established the aforementioned recalculation, and only to the extent that the compensatory salary of their recipients exceeded the new (reduced) maximum amounts of the compensatory salary. Thus, such reduction of the said financial support should not be assessed as discriminatory, and it did not violate the constitutional principle of the equality of rights of persons.

It should also be noted that the extent of the reduction of the paternity social insurance benefits (part thereof) subject to recalculation, the right to which was acquired prior to their reduction, should not be assessed as denying the essence of the right acquired under law to the financial support of an amount provided for by law during leave granted for raising and bringing up children at home.

6.5. Consequently, in the event of the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state and, therefore, in order to ensure the vitally important interests of society and the state as well as to protect other constitutional values, when, temporarily by a certain percentage share, without denying the essence of the right acquired under law to the support of an amount provided for by law during paternity leave, recalculating, as a result of reduction, paternity social insurance benefits (part thereof) the right to which was acquired prior to their reduction, no duty arises for the legislature from the requirements, stemming from the Constitution, inter alia, Article 23 and Paragraph 2 of Article 38 thereof as well as the constitutional principles of the equality of rights of persons and the state under the rule of law, to be obliged to compensate for the reduced, as a result of recalculation, paternity social insurance benefits the right to which was acquired prior to their reduction.

Thus, it should be held that the legal regulation consolidated in Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as it does not provide for the obligation of the legislature to compensate for the reduced, as a result of recalculation, paternity social insurance benefits (part thereof) the right to which was acquired prior to their reduction, is not in conflict with the requirements stemming from Article 23 of the Constitution with respect to the protection of ownership rights, does not deny the state’s duty stemming from Paragraph 2 of Article 38 thereof to protect and take care of family, motherhood, fatherhood, and childhood and does not deviate from the requirements stemming from the constitutional principles of the equality of rights of persons and a state under the rule of law.

In the light of the foregoing arguments, the conclusion should be drawn that Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Provisional Law, insofar as it does not provide for the obligation of the legislature to compensate for the reduced, as a result of recalculation, paternity social insurance benefits the right to which was acquired prior to their reduction, is not in conflict with Article 23 and Paragraph 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principles of the equality of rights of persons and 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, 531, 54, 55, 56, and 69 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 Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 152-6820), insofar as it does not provide for the obligation of the legislature to compensate for the reduced, as a result of recalculation, paternity social insurance benefits the right to which was acquired prior to their reduction, is not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
  2. To dismiss the part of the case regarding:

– the compliance of Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 152-6820), insofar as it was applied in approving the marginal amount of the awarded maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits subject to recalculation, with Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as the constitutional principles of the separation of powers and a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 152-6820), insofar as, according to the petitioner, the recalculation of the awarded maternity, paternity, and maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, which is regulated by this article, created preconditions for reducing the said benefits, with Article 23, Paragraph 2 of Article 38, and Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as the constitutional principles of the separation of powers and a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 10 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 152-6820), insofar as the recalculation of the awarded maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, which is regulated by these paragraphs, created preconditions for reducing the said benefits, with Article 23, Paragraph 2 of Article 38, and Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Article 15 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 152-6820) with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 152-6820), insofar as, according to the petitioner, it does not provide for any compensation for the reduced, as a result of recalculation, awarded maternity and maternity (paternity) social insurance benefits, with Article 23 and Paragraph 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as the constitutional principles of the equality of rights of persons and a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 152-6820), insofar as, according to the petitioner, it provides that the Government of the Republic of Lithuania is commissioned to prepare and approve the description of the procedure for compensation for the reduced state social insurance pensions of old age and of lost capacity to work, with Item 2 of Article 67 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Article 3 (wordings of 19 December 2008 and 17 July 2009) (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2008, No. 149-6011; 2009, No. 91-3915) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants with Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

 

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

Justices of the Constitutional Court:                         Toma Birmontienė

                                                                                             Pranas Kuconis

                                                                                             Gediminas Mesonis

                                                                                             Ramutė Ruškytė

                                                                                             Egidijus Šileikis

                                                                                             Algirdas Taminskas

                                                                                             Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis