Lt

On the reduction of the remuneration of state servants and judges

Case No. 125/2010-26/2011-21/2012-6/2013-8/2013-10/2013

 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 RULING

ON THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA ESTABLISHING THE REDUCED REMUNERATION OF STATE SERVANTS AND JUDGES IN AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL SITUATION IN THE STATE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 1 July 2013

Vilnius

 

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

The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė

Judge Ernestas Spruogis, acting as the representative of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, and Judge Rūta Petkuvienė and Judge Andrius Verikas, acting as the representatives of the Vilnius City Local Court, a petitioner

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, at the Court’s public hearing, on 18 June 2013, heard constitutional justice case No. 125/2010-26/2011-21/2012-6/2013-8/2013-10/2013 subsequent to:

1) petition No. 1B-138/2010 of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2009), the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 17 July 2009), and the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service (wording of 17 July 2009), insofar as they established the different extent of the reduction of the remuneration of state servants, are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

2) petition No. 1B-26/2011 of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009), insofar as it established coefficient 12.5 of the positional salary of judges of local courts, was not in conflict with, whilst 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 (wording of 17 July 2009), insofar as it established that the base amount of the positional salary (remuneration) of state politicians, judges, state officials and state servants shall be LTL 450 as from 1 August 2009 until 31 December 2009, and Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009), insofar as it established coefficient 11.56 of the positional salary of judges of local courts, are not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

3) petition No. 1B-38/2012 of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 17 July 2009) of Article 25 and Annex 1 (wording of 17 July 2009) to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

4) petition No. 1B-10/2013 of the Vilnius City Local Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether:

– 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 (wording of 17 July 2009), insofar as it provides that the base amount of the positional salary (remuneration) of state politicians, judges, state officials and state servants shall be LTL 450 as from 1 August 2009 until 31 December 2009, Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009), insofar as it established coefficient 16.46 of the positional salary of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, and Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009), insofar as it established coefficient 15.23 of the positional salary of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, are (were) not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law,

– the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 2 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 30 June 2010) was not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 48, and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

5) petition No. 1B-13/2013 of the Vilnius City Local Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether:

– Article 1 the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009), insofar as it established coefficient 15.14 of the positional salary of judges of regional administrative courts and Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009), insofar as it established coefficient 14 of the positional salary of judges of regional administrative courts are (were) not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law,

– the Republic of Lithuania’s laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) amending Article 2 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges and the Republic of Lithuania’s laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) amending Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges are (were) not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 48, and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

6) petition No. 1B-15/2013 of the Vilnius City Local Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether:

– 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 (wording of 17 July 2009), insofar as it provides that the base amount of the positional salary (remuneration) of state politicians, judges, state officials and state servants shall be LTL 450 as from 1 August 2009 until 31 December 2009, Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009), insofar as it established coefficient 15.14 of the positional salary of judges of regional administrative courts, and Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009), insofar as it established coefficient 14 of the positional salary of judges of regional administrative courts, are (were) not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law,

– the Republic of Lithuania’s laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) amending Article 2 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges and the Republic of Lithuania’s laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) amending Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges are (were) not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 48, and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

By the Constitutional Court’s decision of 11 June 2013, the aforesaid petitions were joined into one case.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

  1. Petition No. 1B-138/2010 of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, regarding the compliance of the Law Amending Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2009), the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 17 July 2009), the Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service (wording of 17 July 2009), and petition No. 1B-38/2012 of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, a petitioner, regarding the compliance of the Paragraph 3 (wording of 17 July 2009) of Article 25 and Annex 1 (wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the State Service with the Constitution, are substantiated by the following legal reasoning.

1.1. After the Seimas had adopted the Law Amending Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2009), the coefficients of the positional salaries were reduced, as from 1 May 2009, for the state servants (inter alia, the statutory ones) of the categories higher than 14. After the Seimas had adopted the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 17 July 2009) and the Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service (wording of 17 July 2009), the coefficients of the positional salaries were reduced once again as from 1 August 2009, but this time they were reduced for the state servants (inter alia, the statutory ones) of the categories higher than 10, as well as their additional pay for their qualification classes, whereas regarding the officials of the Special Investigation Service, the additional pay for their qualification categories were reduced.

The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court (petition No. 1B-138/2010), a petitioner, asserts that the coefficients of the positional salary were reduced in a disproportionate manner not for one budget year, but for a longer period and only for the state servants (inter alia, the statutory ones) with higher positional categories; a different extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the state servants (inter alia, the statutory ones) of the institutions funded from the state budget was established; the reduction was carried out in the middle of the budget year. For the most qualified officials of the Special Investigation Service, who had the longest work record, the work remuneration had been reduced by additional 10–15 percent (according to their respective qualification category) in comparison with the other state servants (inter alia, the statutory ones) who receive their work remuneration from state budget funds, since the additional pay for the qualification category is calculated on the positional salary. Thus, the establishment of the remuneration of state servants through the impugned laws violated the principles of legitimate expectations, the equality of persons before the law, proportionality, and good faith. In the event of a difficult economic and financial situation in the state, the reduction of the remuneration of state servants would objectively be justified if it were carried out with the application of the same criterion (for example, if only the base amount on which the positional salaries are calculated were reduced).

1.2. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (petition No. 1B-38/2012), a petitioner, notes that after the Seimas had adopted the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service on 17 July 2009, Article 1 of the said law amended Paragraph 3 of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service. The legal regulation established in the latter paragraph reduced the work remuneration of the state servants of a certain qualification class, even though the work remuneration of the state servants with no qualification class was not reduced in a corresponding amount. In addition, the additional pay of the state servants, holding a qualification class, for the corresponding qualification class was reduced not in the same percentage amount—the additional pay for the first qualification class was reduced by 40 percent (from 50 down to 30 percent of the positional salary), whereas the additional pay for the second and third qualification class—by 33 percent each (from 30 down to 20 percent and from 15 down to 10 percent of the positional salary respectively). Thus, the legal regulation established through Paragraph 3 (wording of 17 July 2009) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service reduced, due to the difficult economic and financial situation in the state, the remuneration for work of state servants in a different manner, without the adhering to the proportions in the amounts of the remuneration of the state servants with different categories that had existed prior to the occurrence of the said difficult economic and financial situation; the said legal regulation paid heed not to the entire remuneration received, but rather to individual constituent parts of the remuneration of the state servant; in addition, the remuneration of only a part of state servants (i.e. those holding a qualification class) was reduced.

The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (petition No. 1B-38/2012), a petitioner, also notes that the legislature, having adopted the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service, reduced the coefficients of positional salaries of the state servants of positional categories 11–20, although did not reduce the coefficients of positional salaries of the state servants of positional categories 1–10. The coefficients of the positional salaries of state servants of different categories were reduced not by the same percentage amount (for example, the coefficient of the positional salary of category 11 was reduced by about 0.6 percent (from 5.2 down to 5.17), that of category 13 was reduced by about 1.6 percent (from 6.3 down to 6.2), and that of category 20 was reduced by about 7.6 percent (from 11.4 down to 10.54). Thus, the legal regulation established in Annex 1 (wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the State Service has reduced, due to the difficult economic and financial situation in the state, the remuneration of state servants only for certain categories of state servants, it has been reduced in a different manner, without the maintaining of the proportions in the amounts of the remuneration of state servants that used to be prior to the difficult financial and economic situation.

1.3. The constitutional institute of the state service implies a certain hierarchical system of state servants and differentiated amounts of the remuneration paid to the servants. The proportions of the differences in the amounts of the remuneration of state servants depend on a number of objective peculiarities of the state service, as, for instance, the character of the corresponding functions ascribed to a state institution, the complexity and extent of the functions attributed to the state servant, the responsibility for execution of these functions, the peculiarities of the taken posts, a state servant’s professional level, qualification etc.

The impugned legal regulation reduced, due to the difficult economic and financial situation in the state, the remuneration of state servants in a disproportionate manner, inter alia, the amount of the remuneration of a state servant with high qualification, who performs complex work, was approximated to the amount of that of a state servant that performs less complicated work or work requiring lesser qualification; in the course of the reduction of the remuneration of certain groups of state servants one took account of not the entire work remuneration received, but only of the individual constituent parts of the work remuneration of the state servant. Thus, the constitutional concept of the state service was deviated from, the constitutional principles of proportionality, the equality of rights, and justice were denied, the human right, consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, to receive fair pay for work was violated, and the legal conditions for the violation of the right of ownership, consolidated in Article 23 of the Constitution, were created.

1.4. The petitioners’ doubts about the compliance of the provisions of the impugned laws with the Constitution are also substantiated by the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine, inter alia, by the fact that the reduction of the remuneration of state servants is allowed only in exceptional situations and only if it is necessary in order to protect the other values consolidated in the Constitution; however, even in such exceptional cases the remuneration for work may not be reduced in violation of the balance entrenched in the Constitution between the interests of a person and those of the society; the pay for work may not be reduced only for separate categories of employees who are paid for their work with the funds of the state budget or municipal budget and the reduction of the pay for work must be in line with the constitutional principle of proportionality; when, due to an extremely difficult economic and financial situation in the state, the legislature adopts a decision to reduce the remuneration for work of officials and other state servants (employees) of the institutions that are funded from state or municipal budgets, the legislature must ascertain that the economic and financial situation of the state is so difficult that it calls for the necessity of the reducing of the remuneration for work of the said officials and state servants (employees).

  1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court (petition No. 1B-26/2011) and the Vilnius City Local Court (petitions Nos. 1B-10/2013, 1B-15/2013), petitioners, substantiate their doubts about the compliance of the 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 (wording of 17 July 2009) with the Constitution by the following legal reasoning.

Article 1 of the 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 (wording of 17 July 2009), in view of the procedure of its adoption, is not in line with Article 3 of the Law on the Remuneration of Judges that provides that the base amount of the remuneration and of the positional salary (such base amount is approved for the next year by the Seimas before the end of the Seimas spring session after it has been submitted by the Government, and upon an evaluation of the proposals of the organisations representing judges, of the average annual inflation of the previous year (based on the calculation of the national consumer price index), and of the impact of other factors influencing the amount of and changes in the average work remuneration in the public sector) is applied for the calculation of the remuneration of judges; the new base amount proposed for approval may not be smaller than the existing base amount, with the exception of the cases where the economic and financial situation in the state deteriorates in substance. However, the impugned 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 approved the base amount as from 1 August 2009 but not for the next year—2010. The legislature must abide not only by the Constitution, but also by the laws that provide for the law-making procedures. Through the impugned legal regulation the legislature disregarded the constitutional imperative of the enacting of laws according to the procedure established by law (i.e., according to Article 3 of the Law on the Remuneration of Judges) and violated the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, as well as Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution that provides that the scope of power shall be limited by the Constitution. When the remuneration of judges is reduced without following the procedures, influence is exerted on the independence of judges, thus, there is a violation of Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution that provides that, while administering justice, the judge and courts shall be independent.

  1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court (petition No. 1B-26/2011) and the Vilnius City Local Court (petitions Nos. 1B-10/2013, 1B-13/2013, 1B-15/2013), petitioners, substantiate their doubts about the compliance of Article 1 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wordings of 28 April 2009 and 17 July 2009) with the Constitution by the following legal reasoning.

The impugned Articles 1 of the laws (wordings of 28 April 2009 and 17 July 2009) amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries of judges. Article 3 of the Law on the Remuneration of Judges does not provide for any possibility of the reduction of the remuneration of judges by amending the coefficients of the remuneration of judges, but consolidates a possibility of the reduction of only the base amount under the established procedure. The Seimas, while exceeding its powers, while failing, in an unlawful manner, to follow the constitutional imperative of the enacting of laws only according to the procedure established by law, violated the social guarantees (remuneration) of judges.

The reduction of the remuneration of judges when the procedures are ignored exerts influence on the independence of judges. The constitutional imperative of the constitutional protection of remuneration and other social (material) guarantees of judges stems from the Constitution, inter alia, the principle of the independence of judges and courts established in Article 109 thereof; through this principle one attempts to protect the judges administering justice from any influence of the legislative and the executive powers as well as from that of other state establishments and officials, political and public organisations, commercial economic structures, and other legal and natural persons; the remuneration of judges must be established by means of a law, their amounts, as well as the material and social guarantees established to judges must be such so that they would be in line with the constitutional status and dignity of judges; any attempts to reduce the remuneration of judges or their other social (material) guarantees, or the limitation upon the financing of courts are treated as an encroachment upon the independence of judges and courts.

  1. The Vilnius City Local Court (petitions Nos. 1B-10/2013, 1B-15/2013), a petitioner, substantiates its doubts about the compliance of the laws (wordings 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) amending Article 2 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, that of the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) amending Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges with the Constitution, also, the same court (petition No. 1B-13/2013), a petitioner, substantiates its doubts about the compliance of the Law Amending Article 2 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 30 June 2010) with the Constitution, by the following legal reasoning.

The reduction of the remuneration of judges is allowed only when there is an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state, and their reduction is only allowed provided they are reduced on a temporary basis, therefore, after the improvement of the economic indicators of the state the judges had the legitimate expectation of the receiving of the remuneration that they had received prior to the economic crisis. Even though the economic indicators of the state were improving, each year the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) amending Article 2 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges prolonged the reduction of the remuneration of judges and the coefficients of their positional salary, whilst the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) amending Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges continued to postpone the validity of the remuneration of judges and the coefficients of their positional salary, therefore, there was a violation of the right of judges to receive fair pay for work, as consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, which is defended and guaranteed as the right of ownership under Article 23 of the Constitution. In such a situation, where the prolonging of the validity of the reduced remuneration of judges continued, one disregarded the specification pointed out in the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence that such laws should be in effect only on a temporary basis, therefore, there was a violation of the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution stipulating that the scope of power shall be limited by the Constitution, since the legislature had disregarded the constitutional imperative of the enacting of laws only according to the procedure established by law.

II

  1. In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court’s hearing written explanations were received from a member of the Seimas, Rimantas Jonas Dagys, acting as a representative of the Seimas, the party concerned (Rimantas Jonas Dagys, a member of the Seimas, represents the Seimas, the party concerned, in the part of the case commenced subsequent to petition No. 1B-26/2011 of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner) and a member of the Seimas, Vincė Vaidevutė Margevičienė, acting as a representative of the Seimas, the party concerned (Vincė Vaidevutė Margevičienė, a member of the Seimas, represents the Seimas, the party concerned, in the part of the case commenced subsequent to petition No. 1B-38/2012 of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, a petitioner), wherein it is asserted that the impugned legal regulation is not in conflict with the Constitution. Arvydas Vidžiūnas, acting as a representative of the Seimas, the party concerned (Arvydas Vidžiūnas represents the Seimas, the party concerned, in the part of the case commenced subsequent to petition No. 1B-138/2010 of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner) did not submit any written explanations.
  2. The position of R. J. Dagys, acting as the representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, regarding petition No. 1B-26/2011 of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, is substantiated by the following arguments.

2.1. The Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009 was adopted in the face of the deterioration of the economic and financial situation of this country and in order to implement the Crisis Management Plan prepared within the programme of the 15th Government of the Republic of Lithuania through which one made an attempt to reduce the state budget allocations for the work remuneration and to stabilise the financial system of the state, as well as to use state funds in a more rational manner. After the coefficients of the positional salary of the remuneration of judges had been reduced through this law, there was a reduction in the state budget expenditure. The reduction of the coefficients of the remuneration of judges was in line with the proportions in the planned reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of state servants, therefore, the equilibrium of the work remuneration regarding, on the one hand, the rights and legitimate interests of the persons to whom less favourable legal regulation had been established, and, on the other hand, the rights and legitimate interests of society and the state, was preserved, thus, the requirements of the principle of proportionality were heeded.

2.2. The base amount of the positional salary (remuneration) applicable in 2009 had been established through the Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants, and had been LTL 475. The impugned 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 (wording of 17 July 2009) established the base amount of LTL 450. This law was influential on the amount of the expenditure of the 2009 State Budget.

The Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009) and the 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 (wording of 17 July 2009) should be regarded as one and combined fiscal decision of the state: while adopting the impugned laws, the Seimas implemented its fiscal policy aiming at the ensuring of the stabilisation of state finances and at the softening of the consequences of the economic crisis. Such a fiscal decision ensures the harmony of laws and a possibility, in reality, but not in a perfunctory manner, of the pursuing of the state fiscal policy that satisfies the public needs. Through such combined and legally important actions the legitimate interests of the entire society, as well as those of its every member, are defended.

  1. The position of V. V. Margevičienė, the member of the Seimas acting as the representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, regarding petition No. 1B-38/2012 of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania is grounded on the following arguments.

3.1. The purpose of the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service was to reduce, in view of the financial possibilities of the then state budget, on a temporary basis (until 31 December 2010), the amounts of the additional pay for the qualification class that had been established in Paragraph 3 of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service and the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of categories 11–20 established in Annex 1 to the same law.

Until 1 August 2009, Paragraph 3 of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service used to establish that the additional pay for the third qualification class shall constitute 15 percent of the positional salary, that the additional pay for the second qualification class shall constitute 30 percent of the positional salary, and that the additional pay for the first qualification class shall constitute 50 percent of the positional salary. The coefficients of the positional salary of state servants that had been established in Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 4 December 2007) were not in line with the then financial possibilities of the state budget. After the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service had been adopted and the coefficients of the positional salary and the additional pay for the qualification classes of state servants had been reduced, there was a reduction in state budget expenditure.

3.2. In an attempt to overcome the economic crisis, to stabilise the financial system of the state, and to reduce the state budget allocations for work remuneration, on 17 July 2009, not only the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service, but also the other following laws regulating the work remuneration of state servants, judges, prosecutors. state politicians and officials, were adopted: 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, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 42 of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, and the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 1 of the Law Amending the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania.

These laws established the reduction of the coefficients of the paid remuneration and the additional pay of the qualification category according to the rule that the additional pay paid for a higher qualification class or category must be bigger than the one paid for a lower qualification class or category. The same rule was followed when the coefficients of the positional salary were established. Thus, this legal regulation kept the difference between the coefficients applicable for the higher and lower categories. In the course of the submitting of the impugned amendments to the law one took into consideration the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 28 March 2006, in which it was noted that the legislature has the right to reduce remuneration only by means of a law and only on a temporary basis, however, in line with the requirements of proportionality; the equilibrium of the work remuneration regarding, on the one hand, the rights and legitimate interests of the persons to whom the less favourable legal regulation had been established, and, on the other hand, the rights and legitimate interests of society and the state, was preserved, thus, the requirements of the principle of proportionality were heeded.

  1. R. J. Dagys and V. V. Margevičienė, the members of the Seimas acting as the representatives of the Seimas, the party concerned, noted that, in the course of the adoption of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009), the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 17 July 2009), and the 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 (wording of 17 July 2009), the amounts of the expenditure established therein were co-ordinated with the provisions of the Law Amending Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 and Appendixes 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2009 State Budget and the Municipal Budgets.

The representatives of the Seimas emphasised that, according to the Constitutional Court, the Seimas is bound not only by the Constitution, but also by the laws that it itself has adopted. Thus, while considering and approving a draft state budget, the Seimas must follow the laws that presuppose a certain amount of estimated state revenue and expenditure, i.e. it must follow the tax laws and other laws that create preconditions for planning and collecting state budget revenues, as well as the laws determining state financial obligations and corresponding planned state budget expenditure. Under the Constitution, the legislature, when passing a law or other legal act the implementation of which requires funds, must provide for the funds necessary for the implementation of such a law or other legal act; under the Constitution, the legislature may not create any such legal situation where, after the passing of a law or other legal act the implementation of which requires funds, such funds are not allocated or the allocation thereof is not sufficient.

The representatives of the party concerned substantiated their position by the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine that, from the constitutional concept of the state budget and the constitutional principle of responsible governance stems the fact that the state budget must be realistic, the revenue and expenditure provided for therein must be grounded upon an assessment of the needs and possibilities of society and the state, that the constitutional imperative of an open, just and harmonious civil society, the necessity to ensure the constitutional rights and freedoms of persons and to protect the other values entrenched in the Constitution imply the duty of the Government, in the course of the preparation of the draft budget of the state, and the right of the Seimas, in the course of the consideration of and approving the state budget, to into consideration the state functions established in the Constitution, the existing economic and social situation, the needs and possibilities of society and the state, the available and potential financial resources and state obligations (inter alia, international ones), as well as other important factors.

The representatives of the Seimas, the party concerned, also noted that, in its ruling of 15 February 2013, after assessing the compliance of the laws which affected the amount of the 2009 state budget revenue, the Constitutional Court held that the Seimas had adopted those laws in order to react to the situation that had occurred in the state due to the economic crisis and in an attempt to guarantee the stability of public finances and not to allow the rise of an excessive budget deficit. Therefore, those laws, which are impugned by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, petitioners, that had been adopted for the implementation of this constitutionally important objective, were not in conflict with the Constitution.

III

In the course of the preparation of the case for the judicial consideration, the Letter (No. (2.34-02)-5K-1308152)-6K-1303965) of Republic of Lithuania’s Finance Minister Rimantas Šadžius “On the Information for a Constitutional Justice Case” of 26 April 2013 was received, in which it was pointed out that, as from 1 May 2009, the coefficients of the positional salaries of state politicians, judges, and state officials and the coefficients of the positional salaries of state servants (categories 15–20) had been reduced in a differentiated manner (from 2 to 12 percent); because of such measures the sum of about LTL 11 million was saved in the state budget in 2009 (including social insurance contributions). As from 1 August 2009, the coefficients of the positional salaries of state politicians, judges, and state officials, the coefficients of positional salaries of state servants (categories 11–20) were reduced in a differentiated manner (from by 0.58 percent to by 10 percent); in addition, the amounts of the additional pay paid to state servants for their qualification class had also been reduced; because of such measures the sum of about LTL 40 million was saved in the state budget in 2009 (including social insurance contributions). Due to all the above reductions, during each subsequent year (including 2013), the sum of about LTL 112 million has been saved annually in the state budget.

The same letter of R. Šadžius, the Minister of Finance, also notes that, in order to save the state budget funds in the sum of LTL 112 million every year, the payroll budget of the employees of the above categories should have been reduced in a gradual manner: in 2009—about 2 percent (the reduction of the work remuneration had taken place in separate stages), and, during each successive year—about 4.5 percent.

In the course of the preparation of the case for the judicial consideration, questions were put to the specialists—Vida Žagūnienė, Head of Education, Culture and Social Sectors Division of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania and Irena Džervienė, Head of State Governance and Defence Sectors Division of the Budget Department of the same ministry. They confirmed the data pointed out in the Letter of Finance Minister Rimantas Šadžius “On the Information for a Constitutional Justice Case” of 26 April 2013, according to which, in order to save the state budget funds in the same sum of LTL 112 million every year that had been saved due to the aforesaid measures of the reduction of the remuneration of state politicians, judges, state officials, and state servants (with the exception of servicemen), the remuneration of state politicians, judges, state officials, and state servants should have been reduced in a gradual (non-differentiated) manner: in 2009–by 2 percent, and in 2010–2013—by 4.5 percent.

IV

  1. At the Constitutional Court’s hearing, Judge E. Spruogis, acting as the representative of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, and Judge R. Petkuvienė and Judge A. Verikas, acting as the representatives of the Vilnius City Local Court, a petitioner, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in the petitions of the petitioners and answered the questions of the justices of the Constitutional Court.
  2. A. Vidžiūnas, V. V. Margevičienė, and R. J. Dagys, the members of the Seimas acting as the representatives of the Seimas, the party concerned, failed to appear at the Constitutional Court’s hearing, despite the fact that the summonses had been delivered to them.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

  1. In the constitutional justice case at issue one impugns the compliance of the legal provisions that reduced the remuneration of state servants and judges in an extremely difficult economic and financial situation in the state with Paragraph 2 of Article 5, Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48, and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution, as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  2. Although the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court (petition No. 1B-138/2010), a petitioner, requests an investigation into the compliance of the Law Amending Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2009), the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 17 July 2009), and the Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service (wording of 17 July 2009) with the Constitution, however, from the arguments set forth in the petition it is clear that the petitioner has doubts about the compliance of Annex 1 (its wording of 23 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the State Service and Paragraph 4 of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) with the Constitution.
  3. Although the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (petition No. 1B-38/2012), a petitioner, requests an investigation into the compliance of inter alia Paragraph 3 of Article 25 (wording of 17 July 2009) of the Law on the State Service with the Constitution, however, from the arguments set forth in the petition it is clear that the petitioner has doubts about the compliance of inter alia Paragraph 3 of Article 25 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of the Law on the State Service with the Constitution.
  4. Although the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court (petition No. 1B-26/2011), a petitioner, and the Vilnius City Local Court (petitions Nos. 1B-10/2013, 1B-13/2013, 1B-15/2013), a petitioner, requests an investigation into the compliance of inter alia Article 1 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009) and Article 1 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009) with the Constitution, from the arguments set forth in the petitions it is clear that the petitioners have doubts about the compliance of the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (its wording of 28 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) with the Constitution.
  5. Although the Vilnius City Local Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into the compliance of inter alia the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) amending Article 2 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges with the Constitution, from the arguments set forth in the petitions it is clear that the petitioner has doubts about the compliance of Article 2 (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009) with the Constitution.
  6. Although the Vilnius City Local Court (with the exception of its request No. 1B-10/2013), a petitioner, requests an investigation into the compliance of inter alia the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) amending Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges with the Constitution, from the arguments set forth in the petitions it is clear that the petitioner has doubts about the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009) with the Constitution.
  7. Although the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, and the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, a petitioner, request an investigation into the compliance of the impugned laws with, inter alia, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, from the arguments set forth in the petitions it is clear that the petitioners have doubts about the compliance of the said laws with the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.
  8. From the arguments set forth in the petitions of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court (petition No. 1B-26/2011), a petitioner, and the Vilnius City Local Court (petitions Nos. 1B-10/2013 and 1B-15/2013), a petitioner, it is clear that, in impugning Article 1 of the 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 (wording of 17 July 2009), they request an investigation into the compliance of the said article with the Constitution insofar as the said article established the base amount of LTL 450 of the positional salary (remuneration) of state politicians, judges, state officials, and state servants that was applicable for the period from 1 August 2009 until 31 December 2009.
  9. Thus, in the constitutional justice case at issue the petitioners impugn the following:

– the compliance of Annex 1 (its wording of 23 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the State Service, insofar as it established the different extent of the reduction of the remuneration of state servants, with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service, insofar as it established the different extent of the reduction of the remuneration of state servants, with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of the Appendix (its wording of 28 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009) to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, insofar as it established coefficient 12.5 of the positional salary of judges of local courts, coefficient 15.14 of the positional salary of judges of regional administrative courts, and coefficient 16.46 of the positional salary of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, with Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of the Appendix (wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, insofar as it established coefficient 11.56 of the positional salary of judges of local courts, coefficient 14 of the positional salary of judges of regional administrative courts, and coefficient 15.23 of the positional salary of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, with Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Article 1 of the 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 (wording of 17 July 2009), insofar as it established the base amount of LTL 450 of the positional salary (remuneration) of state politicians, judges, state officials, and state servants that was applicable for the period from 1 August 2009 until 31 December 2009, with Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009) with Paragraph 2 of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, Paragraph 2 of Article 109 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

– the compliance of Article 2 (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009) with Paragraph 2 of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, Paragraph 2 of Article 109 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

II

  1. As is known, due to an economic crisis, an especially grave economic and financial situation occurred in Lithuania at the second half of 2008. The Programme of the Fifteenth Government held that “Lithuania is facing an economic crisis” and provided for the most important task for the nearest future, which was handling the economic crisis and its consequences (Paragraph 1).
  2. In an attempt to reduce the allocation of the state budget for the work remuneration, the Seimas adopted several laws related to the reduction of the work remuneration of the officials that is funded with the funds from state and municipal budgets and that of the work remuneration of other state servants (employees), judges, and state politicians. From the arguments specified in the petitions of the petitioners it is clear that they impugn the compliance of some of those laws (some of their provisions) with the Constitution, inter alia, from the aspect of the proportionality of the reduction in the work remuneration: as mentioned before, the petitioners assert that, due to the difficult economic and financial situation in the state, there was a reduction in the amount of the remuneration of state servants, however, the remuneration was only reduced for certain categories of state servants, it was reduced in a different manner, without the maintaining of the proportions in the amounts of the remuneration of state servants that used to be prior to the difficult financial and economic situation; the amount of the remuneration of a state servant with high qualification, who performs complex work, was approximated to the amount of that of a state servant that performs less complicated work or work requiring lesser qualification; in the course of the reduction of the remuneration of certain groups of state servants one took account of not the entire work remuneration received, but only of the individual constituent parts of the work remuneration of the state servant.

It should be noted that, in order to assess the reasonableness of the arguments of the petitioners, it is necessary to take account of the overall legal regulation that reduced the remuneration of the officials and state servants (i.e., under the effective legal regulation, state politicians and officials, judges, and state servants) of all institutions of the branches of state power (the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary).

III

  1. It has been mentioned that in the constitutional justice case at issue the petitioners impugn the compliance of inter alia Article 1 of the 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 (wording of 17 July 2009), insofar as it established the base amount of LTL 450 of the positional salary (remuneration) of state politicians, judges, state officials, and state servants that was applicable for the period from 1 August 2009 until 31 December 2009, with the Constitution.
  2. Prior to the occurrence of the especially difficult economic and financial situation due to the economic crisis in the state at the second half of 2008, the Base Amount, for 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants (hereinafter also referred to as the base amount) used to be LTL 490 (Article 3 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). The base amount as established through this law was applied for the calculation, in 2008, of the positional salaries of state politicians, judges, state officials, and state servants, as well as the service remuneration of servicemen and other payments established by means of legal acts (Article 2).
  3. On 19 December 2008, in an attempt to take account of the especially grave economic and financial situation in the state at the second half of 2008 and in the course of the implementing of the provisions of Part II “Crisis Management Plan” of the Programme of the 15th Government as approved by the Seimas resolution of 9 December 2008, the Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants was adopted. The base amount as established through Article 2 of this law was applied for the calculation, in 2009, of the positional salaries of state politicians, judges of courts of general jurisdiction and of specialised courts, state officials, and state servants, the remuneration of justices of the Constitutional Court, as well as the service remuneration of servicemen and other payments established by means of legal acts (Article 2). Article 3 of the said law established the base amount of LTL 475.

Thus, the base amount established through the Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants was smaller by LTL 15 in comparison with the base amount that had been applied by the Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2008, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants. The base amount of LTL 475 should have been applied throughout 2009.

  1. On 17 July 2009, the Seimas adopted the 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 came into force on 31 July 2009. Article 1 of this law, inter alia, established that, as from 1 August 2009 until 31 December 2009, the base amount shall be LTL 450. From the explanatory note of the draft of the said law it is clear that the draft law had been prepared in an attempt to take into consideration the situation of the state and municipal budgets and in order to implement the provisions of Part II “Crisis Management Plan” of the Programme of the 15th Government as approved by the Seimas resolution of 9 December 2008.

Thus, through Article 1 of the 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 the base amount applicable from 1 August 2009 until 31 December 2009, was reduced from LTL 475 down to LTL 450, i.e., by LTL 25. If this base amount is compared with the one established for 2008 prior to the occurrence of the especially difficult economic and financial situation (LTL 490), it is obvious that it is smaller by LTL 40 (8.16 percent). Consequently, as from 1 August 2009, according to Article 1 of the 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, the positional salaries of state politicians, judges of courts of general jurisdiction and of specialised courts, state officials, and state servants, the remuneration of justices of the Constitutional Court and the service remuneration of servicemen, if assessed at the percentage amount (where no account is taken of the changes in the other amounts), were reduced to the same extent (in a proportionate manner) by 8.16 percent, if compared with the positional salaries (remuneration) established according the base amount in 2008 prior to the occurrence of the especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state and for the same period.

  1. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it should be noted that the provisions of the Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants should be construed together with Article 3 (wording of 19 December 2008) of the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 6 November 2008) which prescribes:

“The remuneration of judges shall be calculated by applying the base amount of the remuneration and of positional salaries (hereinafter referred to as “the base amount”) which, on the recommendation of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, upon the evaluation of the proposals of the organisations representing judges, the average annual inflation of the preceding year (by calculating the national consumer price index), and the impact of other factors on the amount of and changes in the average work remuneration in the public sector, shall be approved for the next year by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania prior to the end of the spring session of the Seimas. The new base amount proposed for approval may not be smaller than the existing base amount, with the exception of the cases where the economic and financial situation in the state deteriorates in substance.”

Thus, Article 3 (wording of 19 December 2008) of the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 6 November 2008) provides, inter alia, that the base amount applied for the calculation of the remuneration of judges must be approved only for the subsequent year. It also provides that the new base amount proposed for approval may be smaller than the existing base amount only if the economic and financial situation in the state deteriorates in substance. Consequently, this article does not provide that after substantial deterioration of the economic and financial situation in the state the base amount applied to the calculation of the remuneration of judges may be reduced in the current year. It should be noted that the provisions of this article have not been amended since 19 December 2008 and have been effective until now.

  1. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it should be mentioned that the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2010, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants that was adopted on 2 December 2009, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2011, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants that was adopted on 30 June 2010, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2012, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants that was adopted on 29 November 2011, and the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2013, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants that was adopted on 20 December 2012, did not change the base amount in 2010–2013 in comparison with the one established for the period from 1 August 2009 until 31 December 2009, i.e. it remained LTL 450. It should be noted that the said laws are not the matter of the investigation in the constitutional justice case at issue.

IV

  1. It has been mentioned that in the constitutional justice case at issue the petitioners impugn, inter alia, the compliance of Annex 1 (its wording of 23 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) of the Law on the State Service, insofar as it established the different extent of the reduction of the remuneration of state servants, and that of Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  2. The impugned Annex 1 (its wording of 23 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) of the Law on the State Service established the positional categories of state servants and the coefficients of the positional salaries corresponding to those categories. The impugned Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service established the amounts of the additional pay expressed in the percentage of the positional salary.

2.1. In this context it should be noted that Paragraph 1 of Article 23 (wording of 9 December 2008) of the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2002) provides that the work remuneration of a state servant shall comprise a positional salary, additional pay, payment for work performed during days off, on holidays and at night, as well as for work performed overtime and on shifts.

Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 7 of the Law on the State Service provides that state service positions shall be divided into 20 categories with category 20 ranking as the highest and category 1 ranking as the lowest, whilst Paragraph 1 (wording of 7 October 2003) of this article provides that the state service positions shall be divided into three levels (level A shall comprise positions where higher university education or equivalent education is required; level B shall comprise positions where higher non-university or college-level education or special secondary education completed before 1995 is required; level C shall comprise positions where secondary education and appropriate professional qualifications are required). Under Article 8 of the Law on the State Service, the List of Uniform State Service Positions, the levels and categories of those positions are established through Annex 3 to this law (Paragraph 1 (wording of 4 December 2007)); the categories of uniform state service positions are established in view of the group to which the state or municipal institution or establishment is ascribed; the criteria on the grounds of which state or municipal institutions or establishments are divided into groups are established through Annex 2 to this law (Paragraph 3 (wording of 4 December 2007)). From the said annexes to the Law on the State Service it is clear that the positional categories of state servants depend on the character of activities of state and municipal institutions or establishments, the limits of their activities and the validity of their decisions in a respective territory and the relations with subordinate or non-subordinate subjects. In addition, different requirements, related to the necessary education in order to take those positions, are established for the positional categories of state servants in relation with the level of the positions.

Under Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 December 2008) of Article 24 of the Law on the State Service, the amount of the positional salary is calculated according to the coefficient of the positional salary; the coefficient applicable to the positions of each category is established by Annex 1 of the said law; the positional salary coefficient unit is the base amount of the positional salary of state servants.

Item 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service provides that additional pay is paid to state servants for the qualification class or qualification category. Paragraph 6 (wording of 5 July 2002) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service provides that the additional pay for the rank or official grade or qualification category may only be paid to statutory state servants in accordance with the procedure laid down in the statutes; statutory state servants are not paid the additional pay for the qualification class, except the state servants whose service is regulated by the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Diplomatic Service. Paragraph 5 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service also provides that, inter alia, the additional pay for the qualification class is not paid to state servants of political (personal) confidence.

2.2. Thus, according to the legal regulation established in the Law on the State Service, the main part of the work remuneration of state servants is composed of the positional salary whose amount is calculated according to the coefficient of the positional salary established in Annex 1 of the said law for the respective category of a state servant; a part of the work remuneration of state servants is the additional pay, expressed in the percentage of the positional salary, for the qualification class; this additional pay is not paid to statutory state servants (with the exception of the state servants whose service is regulated by the Law on the Diplomatic Service) and the state servants of political (personal) confidence.

  1. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it should be noted that several measures for the reduction of the work remuneration of state politicians, judges, state officials and state servants have been applied. First of all, the base amount applied to the calculation of the work remuneration of those persons was reduced. As mentioned before, this was done through 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 on 19 December 2008 and through the 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. Those laws established the following base amount of the positional salary (remuneration) of state politicians, judges, state officials, and state servants: from 1 January 2009 until 31 July 2009—LTL 475, whilst from 1 August 2009 until 31 December 2009—LTL 450. It has also been mentioned that in 2010–2013 the base amount was not changed in comparison with the one established for the period from 1 August 2009 until 31 December 2009, i.e. it remained LTL 450.

It has also been mentioned that, according to Article 1 of the 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, as from 1 August 2009, the positional salaries of state politicians, judges of courts of general jurisdiction and of specialised courts, state officials, and state servants, the remuneration of justices of the Constitutional Court and the service remuneration of servicemen, if assessed at the percentage amount (where no account is taken of the changes in the other amounts), were reduced to the same extent (in a proportionate manner) by 8.16 percent, if compared with the positional salaries (remuneration) established according the base amount in 2008 prior to the occurrence of the especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state and for the same period.

  1. The legal regulation, impugned by the petitioners, that is established in Annex 1 (wordings of 23 April 2009 and 17 July 2009) of the Law on the State Service, provides for an additional measure for reducing the coefficients of the positional salary, which was applied twice.

4.1. Prior to the application (as from 1 May 2009) of this measure—the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary—Annex 1 “The Categories of the Positions of the State Servants of the Republic of Lithuania and the Coefficients of Their Positional Salaries” (wording of 4 December 2007) of the Law on the State Service had been valid in which the coefficients of the positional salaries for the individual positional categories had been established: for the 1st category—3.0, the 2nd category—3.2, the 3rd category—3.4, the 4th category—3.6, the 5th category—3.8, the 6th category—4.0, the 7th category—4.2, the 8th category—4.4, the 9th category—4.6, the 10 category—4.8, the 11th category—5.2, the 12th category—5.7, the 13th category—6.3, the 14th category—7.0, the 15th category—7.8, the 16th category—8.7, the 17th category—9.7, the 18th category—10.8, the 19th category—11.9, the 20th category—13.0.

4.2. On 23 April 2009, the Seimas adopted the Law Amending Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service through Article 1 (which came into force on 1 May 2009) whereof it amended Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service and reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of categories 15–20: the coefficient of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 15 was reduced from 7.8 down to 7.6; the coefficient of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 16 was reduced from 8.7 down to 8.4. the coefficient of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 17 was reduced from 9.7 down to 9.1. the coefficient of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 18 was reduced from 10.8 down to 9.9; the coefficient of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 19 was reduced from 11.9 down to 10.7; the coefficient of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 20 was reduced from 13.0 down to 11.4. The coefficients of the other positional categories (1–14) were not reduced through the said law. From the explanatory note to the draft of this law, it is clear that the said draft law was prepared at the time when the economic and financial situation of this country was deteriorating, and in an attempt to implement the Crisis Management Plan provided for in Part II of the Programme of the 15th Government that was approved by the Seimas resolution No. XI-52 of 9 December 2008. Through the Crisis Management Plan attempts were made to reduce the state budget allocations for the work remuneration and to stabilise the financial system of the state, as well as to use state funds in a more rational manner.

4.3. On 17 July 2009, the Seimas adopted the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service through Article 3 (which came into force on 1 August 2009) whereof it amended Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service and reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 11 and of higher categories: the coefficient of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 11 was reduced from 5.2 down to 5.17; the coefficient of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 12 was reduced from 5.7 down to 5.64; the coefficient of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 13 was reduced from 6.3 down to 6.2; the coefficient of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 14 was reduced from 7.0 down to 6.86; the coefficient of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 15 was reduced from 7.6 down to 7.14; the coefficient of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 16 was reduced from 8.4 down to 8.1; the coefficient of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 17 was reduced from 9.1 down to 8.69; the coefficient of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 18 was reduced from 9.9 down to 9.35; the coefficient of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 19 was reduced from 10.7 down to 10; the coefficient of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 20 was reduced from 11.4 to down 10.54. The coefficients of the other positional categories (1–10) were not reduced. From the explanatory note to the draft of this law, it is clear that the said draft law was prepared in view of the difficult economic situation of the state and in order to implement the provisions of Part II “Crisis Management Plan” of the Programme of the 15th Government that was approved by the Seimas through its resolution No. XI-52 of 9 December 2008 and in an attempt to reduce the state budget allocations for the work remuneration and to stabilise the financial system of the state.

4.4. To summarise the legal regulation through which the coefficients of the positional salaries of state servants were reduced, it should be noted that, as from 1 May 2009, the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 15 and of higher categories were reduced, whilst, as from 1 August 2009, the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of category 11 and of higher categories were reduced, and, from among them, the coefficients of the positional salaries of state servants of category 15 and of higher categories were reduced a second time. In the table given below it can be seen how the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of categories 11–20 were reduced after the Law Amending Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2009) and the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 17 July 2009) had been adopted:

 

 

Positional category

The coefficients of the positional salaries prior to the application of the measures of their reduction (Annex 1 (wording of 4 December 2007) to the Law on the State Service)

The coefficients of the positional salaries as from 1 May 2009 (Annex 1 (wording of 23 April 2009) to the Law on the State Service)

The extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries as from 1 May 2009 (in percentage, in comparison with Annex 1 (wording of 4 December 2007) to the Law on the State Service)

The coefficients of the positional salaries as from 1 August 2009 (Annex 1 (wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the State Service)

The extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries as from 1 August 2009 (in percentage, in comparison with Annex 1 (wording of 23 April 2009) to the Law on the State Service)

The total extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries (in coefficient units, in comparison with Annex 1 (wording of 4 December 2007) to the Law on the State Service)

The total extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries (in percentage, in comparison with Annex 1 (wording of 4 December 2007) to the Law on the State Service)

 

11

5.2

5.2 (no changes)

no reduction

5.17

-0.58

-0.03

-0.58

 

12

5.7

5.7 (no changes)

no reduction

6.2

-1.05

-0.06

-1.05

 

13

6.3

6.3 (no changes)

no reduction

6.2

-1.59

-0.1

-1.59

 

14

7.0

7.0 (no changes)

no reduction

6.86

-2

-0.14

-2

 

15

7.8

7.6

-2.56

7.41

-2.5

-0.39

-5

 

16

8.7

8.4

-3.45

8.1

-3.57

-0.6

-6.9

 

17

9.7

9.1

-6.19

8.69

-4.51

-1.01

-10.41

 

18

10.8

9.9

-8.33

9.35

-5.56

-1.45

-13.43

 

19

11.9

10.7

-10.08

10

-6.54

-1.9

-15.97

 

20

13

11.4

-12.31

10.54

-7.54

-2.46

-18.92

 

Thus, through the impugned legal regulation, through the established Annex 1 (its wording of 23 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009) to the Law on the State Service that reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of positional categories 15–20, and through Annex 1 (wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the State Service that established the reduced coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of positional categories 11–20:

– only the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of higher positional categories (11–20) were reduced, however, the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of positional categories 1–10 were not reduced;

– the measures of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of categories 11–20 were applied in an unequal manner: the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of categories 11–14 were reduced once, whilst with regard of the state servants of categories 15–20 this measure was applied twice;

– the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of positional categories 11–20 were reduced, if assessed at the percentage amount, to different extent: from by 0.58 percent for the state servants of category 11 until by 18.92 percent for the state servants of category 20;

– the different extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of positional categories 11–20, if assessed at the percentage amount, depended on the place of the positional categories in the system thereof: the higher the positional category (i.e. the more complex and more responsible functions the state servants of a respective category must perform, and the bigger professional requirements, inter alia, the necessary level of education, are raised for them), the larger extent of the reduction of the coefficient of the positional salary established for this position.

4.5. It should be noted that the validity of the legal regulation established in Paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 17 July 2009), through which the period of the validity of the reduced coefficients of the positional salaries of state servants had been established, was prolonged three times by means of the second paragraphs of the first articles of the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) amending Article 4 of the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service. The legal regulation establishing the reduced coefficients of the positional salaries of state servants is valid at present as well.

It should also be noted that Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2009) provided (and provides) that the coefficients of the positional salaries of state servants valid prior to 30 April 2009 would (will) be applicable again, however, the entry into force of this legal regulation was postponed three times by means of the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) amending Article 3 of the Law Amending Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service.

  1. The legal regulation of Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009, which is impugned by the petitioners) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service, in addition to the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries, applies another measure of the reduction of work remuneration of state servants—the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification class.

5.1. In this context it should be noted that, as mentioned before, a part of the work remuneration of state servants is the additional pay, expressed in the percentage of the positional salary, for the qualification class; this additional pay is not paid to statutory state servants (with the exception of the state servants whose service is regulated by the Law on the Diplomatic Service) and the state servants of political (personal) confidence.

Paragraph 9 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the State Service provides that the qualification class means the qualification level of a state servant of a particular category. According to Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 21 of the Law on the State Service, there are three qualification classes of state servants, the first qualification class being the highest one and the third qualification class being the lowest one. Under Article 22 “Evaluation of Civil Servants and Their Performance Appraisal” of the Law on the State Service, the qualification classes (both higher and lower ones) are assigned to state servants one the grounds of the evaluation of their performance.

Article 22 (wording of 5 June 2012) of the Law on the State Service provides that the purpose of the evaluation of the performance of the head of an establishment and an a career state servant holding the position of the head of an administrative or structural unit of a state or municipal institution or establishment is the annual evaluation, under established procedure, of his qualification and capabilities of the performing of the functions established in his job description and the achieved results in the course of the fulfilling of the tasks formulated for the administrative or structural unit of a state or municipal institution or establishment headed by him (Paragraph 2); the purpose of the evaluation of the performance of other career state servants and that of acting state servants is the annual evaluation, under established procedure, of their capabilities of the performing of the functions established in their job description and their qualification as well as the achieved results in the course of the fulfilling of the tasks formulated for them (Paragraph 3). Under, inter alia, the legal regulation established in Item 1 (wording of 5 June 2012) of Paragraph 14 of Article 22 of the Law on the State Service, if the performance of a state servant is evaluated as excellent, the entity that admitted the state servant to office is proposed that it assign the third qualification class or a consecutively higher qualification class to the state servant. Meanwhile, under, inter alia, the legal regulation established in Item 1 (wording of 22 December 2005) of Paragraph 17 of Article 22 of the Law on the State Service, if the performance of a state servant is evaluated as satisfactory, the entity that admitted the state servant to office is proposed that it assign a consecutively lower qualification class to the state servant, or cancel the third qualification class held by the said state servant, or improve the qualification of the state servant.

Thus, according to the legal regulation established in the Law on the State Service, qualification classes may be assigned to career state servants of all positional categories, heads of establishments (save those appointed on the grounds of the political (personal) confidence), and to the state servants whose service is regulated by the Law on the Diplomatic Service. The qualification class indicates the qualification level of a state servant and is assigned by means of his service evaluation after his qualification and capabilities are assessed. The first qualification class may be assigned to the state servants with highest qualification, whose activity is consecutively assessed as excellent, whereas the second and third qualification classes may be assigned to state servants with less qualification or experience. No qualification classes may be assigned to the state servants with lowest qualification or with the least experience in the state service.

5.2. Prior to the application of the said measure—the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification class—Paragraph 3 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service used to establish that the additional pay for the third qualification class shall constitute 15 percent of the positional salary, that the additional pay for the second qualification class shall constitute 30 percent of the positional salary, and that the additional pay for the first qualification class shall constitute 50 percent of the positional salary.

5.3. On 17 July 2009, the Seimas adopted the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 of the Law on the State Service through Article 1 (which came into force on 1 August 2009) whereof, after the amendment of Paragraph 3 of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service, the additional pay for the qualification class was reduced: the additional pay for the third qualification class—from 15 down to 10 percent of the amount of the positional salary, for the second qualification class—from 30 down to 20 percent of the amount of the positional salary, for the first qualification class—from 50 down to 30 percent of the amount of the positional salary. As mentioned before, from the explanatory note to the draft of this law it is clear that the said draft law was prepared in view of the difficult economic situation of the state and in order to implement the provisions of Part II “Crisis Management Plan” of the Programme of the 15th Government that was approved by the Seimas through its resolution No. XI-52 of 9 December 2008 and in an attempt to reduce the state budget allocations for the work remuneration and to stabilise the financial system of the state.

According to the legal regulation established in Article 2 and Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 17 July 2009), the reduced additional pay should have been in force only on a temporary basis, i.e. until 31 December 2010, whilst, on 1 January 2011, the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification classes that had been applied before should have come into force.

Thus, under the impugned legal regulation established in Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service, the additional pay for the qualification class was reduced in a differentiated manner: the additional pay for the first qualification class was reduced by 40 percent, whereas for the second and the third qualification class by 33.33 percent each (where the changes in the positional salary are not assessed).

To summarise the impugned legal regulation establishing the reduction of the additional pay for qualification classes of state servants, which is a constituent part of the work remuneration of state servants and is expressed in the percentage of the positional salary, it should be noted that the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification class exerted the following influence on the reduction of the overall work remuneration of state servants (where the possible additional pay and extra pay other than the additional pay for the qualification class are not taken into consideration, also where the changes in the base amount and/or the coefficients of the positional salary are not assessed):

– as regards the state servants with the first qualification class, after the additional pay for this qualification class had been reduced from 50 down to 30 percent of the positional salary, due to this their remuneration decreased by 13.33 percent; after this measure had been applied, the difference between the remuneration of the state servants of the same positional category, who hold the first and the second qualification class, decreased from 15.38 down to 8.33 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of a state servant with the first qualification class is bigger than the remuneration of a state servant with the second qualification class), whilst the difference between the remuneration of the state servants of the same positional category, who hold the first qualification class and those with no qualification class, decreased from 50 down to 30 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of a state servant with the first qualification class is bigger than the remuneration of a state servant with no qualification class);

– as regards the state servants with the second qualification class, after the additional pay for this qualification class had been reduced from 30 down to 20 percent of the positional salary, due to this their remuneration decreased by 7.69 percent; after this measure had been applied, the difference between the remuneration of the state servants of the same positional category, who hold the second and the third qualification class, decreased from 13.04 down to 9.09 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of a state servant with the first qualification class is bigger than the remuneration of a state servant with the third qualification class), whilst the difference between the remuneration of the state servants of the same positional category, who hold the second qualification class and those with no qualification class, decreased from 30 down to 20 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of a state servant with the second qualification class is bigger than the remuneration of a state servant with no qualification class);

– as regards the state servants with the third qualification class, after the additional pay for this qualification class had been reduced from 15 down to 10 percent of the positional salary, due to this their remuneration decreased by 4.35 percent; after this measure had been applied, the difference between the remuneration of the state servants of the same positional category, who hold the third qualification class and those who hold no qualification class, decreased from 15 down to 10 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of a state servant with the third qualification class is bigger than the remuneration of a state servant with no qualification class);

– in the course of the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification class, the work remuneration of the state servants with higher positional categories (11–20) was reduced even to a larger extent than it had been done in the course of the application of only the first measure—the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary: from by 4.9 percent regarding the state servants of category 11 to whom the third qualification class was assigned, to by 29.73 percent regarding the state servants of category 20 to whom the first qualification class was assigned; thus, the different extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the state servants of positional categories 11–20, if assessed at the percentage amount, depended not only on the place of the positional categories in the system thereof, but also on the qualification held by the state servants: the higher the positional category and the qualification of the state servant, the larger extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the state servant.

  1. To summarise the legal regulation impugned by the petitioners that is established in Annex 1 (its wording of 23 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) and Paragraph 3 of Article 25 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of the Law on the State Service, according to which both of the additional measures (not including the reduction of the base amount)—the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary and the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification class—of the reduction of the work remuneration of state servants were applied, it should be noted that:

– both of these additional measures of the reduction of the work remuneration were not applied to the state servants with lower positional categories (categories 1–10) and the lowest qualification, as well as with the least experience (with no qualification class);

– one of the additional measures of the reduction of the work remuneration—the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification class—was applied to the state servants with lower positional categories (categories 1–10), but who have higher qualification and more experience (with a qualification class);

– either one or both of the aforesaid additional measures of the reduction of the work remuneration were applied to the state servants of higher positional categories (categories 11–14): with regard to the state servants of these positional categories with lowest qualification and with the least experience (with no qualification class) one of the said additional measures—the reduction of the coefficients of their positional salary—was applied once; both of the aforesaid additional measures—the reduction of the coefficients of their positional salaries and the reduction of their additional pay for the qualification class—were applied to the state servants with higher qualification and more experience (with a qualification class) once;

– either one or both of the aforesaid additional measures of the reduction of the work remuneration were applied to the state servants of the highest positional categories (categories 15–20), but to a larger extent in comparison with the state servants of the positional categories 11–14: the reduction of the coefficients of their positional salary was applied twice to the state servants of the positional categories 15–20 with lowest qualification or with the least experience (with no qualification class); the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary was applied twice and the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification class was applied once to the state servants of the positional categories 15–20 with higher qualification and with more experience (with a qualification class);

– if assessed at the percentage amount (where no account is taken of the changes in the base amount), the application of the measures of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary and of the additional pay for the qualification class determined a very different extent in the reduction of the remuneration of state servants: due to these measures, the remuneration was not reduced as regards the state servants of lowest positional categories (categories 1–10) with the lowest qualification or with the least experience (with no qualification class), however, due to both of the above measures, the remuneration of the state servants of higher positional categories (categories 11–20) and/or with higher qualification or more experience (inter alia, the state servants of the positional categories 1–10 with a qualification class) was reduced up by 29.73 percent (for the state servants of category 20 to whom the first qualification class was assigned); as regards the state servants of categories 11–20 with a qualification class to whom both of the above additional measures of the reduction of the work remuneration were applied, their remuneration was reduced from by 4.9 percent (the state servants of category 11 to whom the third qualification class was assigned) to by 29.73 percent (the state servants of category 20 to whom the first qualification class was assigned);

– in the course of the application of both of the additional measures of the reduction of the work remuneration of state servants, the different extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the state servants of positional categories 11–20 depended on the place of respective categories in the system thereof and/or on the qualification held by the state servants: the higher the positional category and the qualification of the state servant, the larger extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the state servant.

  1. It has been mentioned that, according to the legal regulation established in Article 2 and Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 17 July 2009), the reduced additional pay should have been in force only on a temporary basis, i.e. until 31 December 2010, whilst, on 1 January 2011, the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification classes that had been applied before should have come into force. The date of the entry into force (established in Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 17 July 2009)) of the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification classes that had been applied before was postponed three times through the first paragraphs of the first articles of the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) that amended Article 4 of the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service.

V

  1. It has been mentioned that in the constitutional justice case at issue one of the petitioners impugns the compliance of inter alia Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service, insofar as it established the different extent of the reduction of the remuneration of state servants, with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 and the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  2. On 17 July 2009, the Seimas adopted the Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service that came into force on 1 August 2009 through Article 1 whereof the additional pay of the officials for the qualification category were reduced. From the explanatory note to the draft of this law it is clear that the said draft law was prepared in view of the difficult economic situation of the state and in order to implement the provisions of Part II “Crisis Management Plan” of the Programme of the 15th Government that was approved by the Seimas through its resolution No. XI-52 of 9 December 2008 and in an attempt to reduce the state budget allocations for the work remuneration and to stabilise the financial system of the state.

2.1. In this context it should be mentioned that, according to Item 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Law on the State Service, additional pay is one of constituent parts of the work remuneration of state servants. Item 2 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of the same law provides that the additional pay paid to state servants for the qualification class or qualification category is a part of the additional pay paid to state servants. Paragraph 6 (wording of 5 July 2002) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service provides that the additional pay for the rank or official grade and for the qualification category may only be paid to statutory state servants in accordance with the procedure laid down in the statutes.

2.2. In this context it should also be noted that, according to Paragraph 1 of Article 20 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service (wording of 1 April 2002), in view of the level of the professional development, the record of service and the results of service performance, by order of the Director of the Special Investigation Service they may be assigned the following qualification categories: the third, the second, and the first. Under the legal regulation established in Article 10 “Merit Rating of the Officials” of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service, the assigning of the qualification category depends on the results of the service performance and the qualification of the officials: according to Item 1 of Paragraph 5 of this article, in case an official of the Special Investigation Service is assessed as excellent, one may propose that a higher qualification category be assigned to him, whilst, under Item 2 of Paragraph 6 of this article, in case an official of the Special Investigation Service is assessed as unsatisfactory, one may propose that a lower qualification category be assigned to him.

Thus, under the legal regulation established in the Statute of the Special Instigation Service, the qualification categories are assigned to the officials of this service in view of their qualification and experience. The first qualification category is the highest one and is assigned to the officials of the Special Investigation Service who have the highest qualification and whose performance is consecutively assessed as excellent; the second and the third qualification categories are assigned to the officials of the Special Investigation Service who have lower qualification or less service experience.

2.3. Prior to the reduction of the additional pay of the officials of the Special Investigation Service for the qualification category by means of the aforesaid Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service that was adopted on 17 July 2009, the then valid Paragraph 4 (wording of 1 April 2003) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service used to establish the following amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category: 15 percent of the positional salary for the third qualification category, 30 percent of the positional salary for the second qualification category, and 45 percent of the positional salary for the first qualification category.

2.4. Under the impugned legal regulation established in Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service, the following extent of the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification category of the officials of the Special Investigation Service was established: the additional pay for the third qualification category was reduced from 15 percent down to 10 percent of the positional salary, the additional pay for the second qualification category was reduced from 30 percent down to 20 percent of the positional salary, whilst the additional pay for the first qualification category was reduced from 45 percent down to 30 percent of the positional salary.

2.4.1. It should be noted that, according to this legal regulation, one of the constituent parts—the additional pay for the third, second, and first qualification categories—of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service was reduced. Therefore, even though they were reduced to the same extent, if assessed at the percentage amount—33.33 percent (where no assessment is made as regards the change in the amount of the positional salary), in view of the fact that the additional pay for different qualification categories were reduced in a different amount expressed in the percentage of the positional salary, the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification category exerted different influence on the reduction of the overall remuneration of officials of the Special Investigation Service (where the possible additional pay and extra pay other than the additional pay for the qualification category are not taken into consideration, also where the changes in the positional salary are not assessed):

– as regards the officials of the Special Investigation Service with the first qualification category, after the additional pay for this qualification category had been reduced from 45 percent down to 30 percent of the positional salary, due to this their remuneration decreased by 10.34 percent; in the course of the application of this measure, the difference between the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service of the same positional category, but who had the first and the second qualification categories, decreased from 11.54 percent down to 8.33 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with the first qualification category is bigger than the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with the second qualification category), whilst the difference between the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service of the same positional category, but who had the first and no qualification categories, decreased from 45 percent down to 30 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with the first qualification category is bigger than the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with no qualification category);

– as regards the officials of the Special Investigation Service with the second qualification category, after the additional pay for this qualification category had been reduced from 30 percent down to 20 percent of the positional salary, due to this their remuneration decreased by 7.69 percent; in the course of the application of this measure, the difference between the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service of the same positional category, but who had the second and the third qualification categories, decreased from 13.04 percent down to 9.09 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with the second qualification category is bigger than the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with the third qualification category), whilst the difference between the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service of the same positional category, but who had the second and no qualification categories, decreased from 30 percent down to 20 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with the first qualification category is bigger than the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with no qualification category);

– as regards the officials of the Special Investigation Service with the third qualification category, after the additional pay for this qualification category had been reduced from 15 percent down to 10 percent of the positional salary, due to this their remuneration decreased by 4.35 percent; in the course of the application of this measure, the difference between the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service of the same positional category, but who had the third qualification category and no qualification category, decreased from 15 percent down to 10 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with the third qualification category is bigger than the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with no qualification category).

2.4.2. The list of the positions of statutory state servants, inter alia, the officials of the Special Investigation Service, and the assignment of the said positions to positional categories are established in Annex 3 to the Law on the State Service. Thus, with regard to the officials of the Special Investigation Service, as well as with regard to other state servants of positional categories 11–20, the measures of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary were applied as established in Annex 1 (wordings of 23 April 2009 and 17 July 2009) to the Law on the State Service.

In view of this fact it should be noted that, after the additional pay for the qualification category had been reduced, the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service of 11–20 categories, as well as that of all state servants of the same categories, was reduced even to a larger extent, if assessed at the percentage amount, than it had been done in the course of the application of the first measure—the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary: the different extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the officials of categories 11–20 depended not only on the place of the positional categories in the system thereof, but also on the qualification held by the officials: the higher the positional category and the qualification of the official, the larger extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the official.

2.5. It should be noted that, according to Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service (wording of 17 July 2009), the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category should have been in force only on a temporary basis, i.e. until 31 December 2010, whilst, on 1 January 2011, the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before should have come into force. The date of the entry into force (established in Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service (wording of 17 July 2009)) of the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before was postponed three times through the Republic of Lithuania’s laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) that amended Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service.

  1. It should be noted that, under the established legal regulation, the officials of the Special Investigation Service were not the only ones for whom the additional pay for the qualification category was established.

3.1. Paragraph 3 of Article 43 (wording of 13 November 2008) of the Statute of the State Security Department of the Republic of Lithuania established the additional pay for the qualification category that had to be paid to officials of the State Security Department. On 17 July 2009, the Seimas adopted the Law Amending Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department through which it amended Paragraph 3 of Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department. Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department established the following extent of the reduction of the additional pay of the officials of the State Security Department for the qualification category: the additional pay for the fourth qualification category—from 20 down to 15 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the third qualification category—from 30 percent down to 20 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the second qualification category—from 40 percent down to 25 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the first qualification category—from 50 percent down to 30 percent of the amount of the positional salary, whereas the additional pay for the fifth qualification category was not reduced—it remained as 10 percent of the amount of the positional salary. Thus, according to this legal regulation, the additional pay of officials of the State Security Department for the qualification category, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent.

It should be noted that, according to Article 2 and Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department (wording of 17 July 2009), the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category should have been in force only on a temporary basis, i.e. until 31 December 2010, whilst, on 1 January 2011, the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before should have come into force. The date of the entry into force (established in Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department (wording of 17 July 2009)) of the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before was postponed twice through the Republic of Lithuania’s laws (wordings of 30 June 2010 and 22 November 2011) that amended Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department. The Law Amending Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department and the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010 and 22 November 2011) that amended Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department became no longer valid after the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on Intelligence (wording of 17 October 2012) had come into force on 1 January 2013.

3.2. Paragraph 3 of Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 1 July 2003) established the additional pay for the qualification category paid to the statutory servants performing civil national defence service. On 17 July 2009, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service through which it amended Paragraph 3 of Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service. Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 20 of this statute established the following extent of the reduction of the additional pay of the statutory servants performing civil national defence service for the qualification category: the additional pay for the first qualification category—from 15 down to 10 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the second qualification category—from 25 percent down to 15 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the third qualification category—from 35 percent down to 20 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the fourth qualification category—from 45 percent down to 25 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the fifth qualification category—from 55 percent down to 30 percent of the amount of the positional salary. Thus, according to this legal regulation, the additional pay for the qualification category of statutory servants performing civil national defence service, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent.

It should be noted that, according to Article 2 and Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service (wording of 17 July 2009), the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category should have been in force only on a temporary basis, i.e. until 31 December 2010, whilst, on 1 January 2011, the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before should have come into force. The date of the entry into force (established in Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service (wording of 17 July 2009)) of the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before was postponed three times through the Republic of Lithuania’s laws (wordings of 20 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) that amended Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service.

3.3. Paragraph 3 of Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence (wording of 20 January 2006) established the additional pay for the qualification category paid to statutory servants of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence (hereinafter also referred to as the Second Investigation Department). On 17 July 2009, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 32 of Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence through which it amended Paragraph 3 of Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence. Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 32 of this statute established the following extent of the reduction of the additional pay of the statutory servants of the Second Investigation Department for the qualification category: the additional pay for the first qualification category—from 35 percent down to 25 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the second qualification category—from 40 percent down to 28 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the third qualification category—from 45 percent down to 30 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the fourth qualification category—from 50 percent down to 35 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the fifth qualification category—from 55 percent down to 38 percent of the amount of the positional salary. Thus, according to this legal regulation, the additional pay for the qualification category of statutory servants of the Second Investigation Department, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent.

It should be noted that, according to Article 2 and Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence (wording of 17 July 2009), the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category should have been in force only on a temporary basis, i.e. until 31 December 2010, whilst, on 1 January 2011, the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before should have come into force. The date of the entry into force (established in Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence (wording of 17 July 2009)) of the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before was postponed twice through the Republic of Lithuania’s laws (wordings of 30 June 2010 and 22 November 2011) that amended Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence. The Law Amending Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence and the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010 and 22 November 2011) that amended Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence became no longer valid after the Law Amending the Law on Intelligence (wording of 17 October 2012) had come into force on 1 January 2013.

3.4. Paragraph 6 of Article 42 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 18 April 2000) established the additional pay for the qualification category paid to the officials of the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter also referred to as the Department of Prisons). On 17 July 2009, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 42 of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania through which it amended Paragraph 6 of Article 42 of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania. From the legal regulation established in Paragraph 6 (wording of 17 July 2009) of Article 46 of this statute it is clear that the following extent of the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification category of the officials of the Department of Prisons: the additional pay for the third qualification category was reduced from 15 percent down to 10 percent of the positional salary, the additional pay for the second qualification category was reduced from 30 percent down to 20 percent of the positional salary, whilst the additional pay for the first qualification category was reduced from 50 percent down to 30 percent of the positional salary. Thus, according to this legal regulation, the additional pay for the qualification category of officials of the Department of Prisons, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent.

On 6 November 2008, the Seimas adopted the Law Amending the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania through Article 1 of which it set forth the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania in its new wording. This wording of the statute came into force on 1 January 2010. Paragraph 4 of Article 41 of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania in this wording established the additional pay for the qualification category paid to the officials of the Department of Prisons, where the amounts of the additional pay were the same as those of the additional pay for the qualification category as established in Paragraph 6 of Article 42 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 18 April 2000). On 17 July 2009, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 1 of the Law Amending the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania through Article 1 of which it amended Paragraph 4 of Article 41 (which had not come into force yet) of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 6 November 2008). Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 January 2010) of Article 41 of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 6 November 2008) established the following extent of the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification category of the officials of the Department of Prisons: the additional pay for the third qualification category was reduced from 15 percent down to 10 percent of the positional salary, the additional pay for the second qualification category was reduced from 30 percent down to 20 percent of the positional salary, whilst the additional pay for the first qualification category was reduced from 50 percent down to 30 percent of the positional salary. Thus, it should be noted that, according to this legal regulation, the additional pay for the qualification category of the officials of the Department of Prisons were reduced to the same extent as it was done according to the legal regulation established in Article 1 of the Law Amending Article 42 of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania.

It should be noted that, according to Articles 2 and 3 of the Law Amending Article 1 of the Law Amending the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 17 July 2009), the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category should have been in force only on a temporary basis, i.e. until 31 December 2010, whilst, on 1 January 2011, the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before should have come into force. The date of the entry into force (established in Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 1 of the Law Amending the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 17 July 2009)) of the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before was postponed three times through the Republic of Lithuania’s laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) that amended Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 1 of the Law Amending the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania.

3.5. Paragraph 5 of Article 36 (wording of 14 November 2008) of the Statute of the Interior Service established the additional pay to the positional salary for the qualification category paid to the officials of the interior service. It should be noted that, after the difficult economic and financial situation had occurred in the state, this additional pay was not reduced.

3.6. Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Statute of the Service in Customs of the Republic of Lithuania established the additional pay to the positional salary for the qualification category paid to customs officials. It should be noted that, after the difficult economic and financial situation had occurred in the state, this additional pay was not reduced.

3.7. To summarise the overall legal regulation that reduced the additional pay for the qualification categories of statutory state servants due to the very difficult economic and financial situation that had occurred in the state, it should be noted that:

– as regards the officials of the Special Investigation Service, their additional pay for the qualification category, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent than it was done with regard to other statutory state servants, i.e., the statutory servants of the State Security Department, the Department of Prisons, the Civil National Defence Service and the Second Investigation Department;

– the additional pay for the qualification category, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent for some statutory state servants (the statutory servants of the Special Investigation Service, the State Security Department, the Department of Prisons, the civil national defence service and the Second Investigation Department), whilst such additional pay was not reduced at all for some statutory state servants (officials of the interior service and customs officials).

VI

  1. It has been mentioned that in the constitutional justice case at issue the petitioners impugn, inter alia, the compliance of the Appendix (its wording of 28 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009) to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, insofar as it established coefficient 12.5 of the positional salary of judges of local courts, coefficient 15.14 of the positional salary of judges of regional administrative courts, and coefficient 16.46 of the positional salary of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania and that of the Appendix (wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, insofar as it established coefficient 11.56 of the positional salary of judges of local courts, coefficient 14 of the positional salary of judges of regional administrative courts, and coefficient 15.23 of the positional salary of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania with Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009) and that of Article 2 (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009) with Paragraph 2 of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, Paragraph 2 of Article 109 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  2. It should be noted that, in order to decide whether the legal regulation impugned by the petitioners is not in conflict with the Constitution, it is necessary to take into consideration the overall legal regulation governing the reduction of judges’ remuneration as established in the Appendix (its wording of 28 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges.
  3. In this context it should be noted that Article 4 “Remuneration of Judges” of the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 6 November 2008), inter alia, provides:

“1. The remuneration of justices of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania shall be calculated by multiplying the corresponding remuneration coefficient, which is set in the Appendix to this Law, by the base amount.

  1. The remuneration of the presidents and their deputies, chairpersons of divisions and judges of courts of general jurisdiction and specialised courts (hereinafter referred to as judges of courts of general jurisdiction and specialised courts) shall consist of the following:

1) the positional salary;

2) the additional pay for the years served for the State of Lithuania.

  1. The positional salary of judges of courts of general jurisdiction and specialised courts shall be calculated by multiplying the corresponding coefficient of the positional salary, which is set in the Appendix to this Law, by the base amount <…>”.

According to Article 3 (wording of 19 December 2008) of the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, the base amount of the remuneration and of the positional salary, which is approved by the Seimas on the proposal by the Government, is applied for the calculation of the remuneration of judges.

  1. Thus, the Law on the Remuneration of Judges established the following constituent parts of the remuneration of judges of courts of general jurisdiction and specialised courts: the positional salary, whose amount is established by multiplying the coefficient established in the appendix to the said law by the base amount, and the additional pay for the years served for the State of Lithuania. Under Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 6 November 2008), the additional pay for the years served for the State of Lithuania shall be three percent for each three years of the positional salary of a judge, however, the amount of the additional pay must not exceed 30 percent of the positional salary. The remuneration of justices of the Constitutional Court is determined by multiplying the remuneration coefficient established in the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges by the base amount; no additional pay for the years served for the State of Lithuania is provided for the President of the Constitutional Court and its justices.
  2. Prior to the entry into force of the legal regulation, which is impugned by the petitioners, that established, inter alia, the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary (remuneration) of judges, the Appendix (wording of 6 November 2008) to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges established the following coefficients (in base amounts) of the remuneration of justices of the Constitutional Court and those of the positional salaries of judges of courts of general jurisdiction and of specialised courts:

– regarding the President of the Constitutional Court (or the justice substituting him)—32.3 and a justice of the same court—29.35;

– regarding the President of the Supreme Court of Lithuania or the justice substituting him—21.7, the chairperson of a division of the same court—20.2, and a justice of the same court—19.2;

– regarding the President of Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania—20.9, the Deputy President of the same court—19.7, and a judge of the same court—18.7;

– regarding the President of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania or the judge substituting him—20.2, the chairperson of a division of the same court—19.2, and a judge of the same court—18.2;

– regarding the president of a regional court or the judge substituting him—19.2, the chairperson of a division of the same court—18.2, and a judge of the same court—17.2;

– regarding the president of a regional administrative court—19.2, the deputy president of the same court—18.2, and a judge of the same court—17.2;

– regarding the president of a local court wherein there are 15 and more judges—17.7, the deputy president of the same court—16, and a judge of the same court—14.2;

– regarding the president of a local court wherein there are 14 and fewer judges—16.7, the deputy president of the same court—15.3, and a judge of the same court—14.2.

  1. On 28 April 2009, the Seimas adopted the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges. By means of Article 1 (it came into force on 1 May 2009) of the same law the coefficients of the remuneration and those of the positional salaries of judges were reduced. From the explanatory note to the draft of this law it is clear that the said draft law was prepared at the time when the economic and financial situation of this country was deteriorating, and in an attempt to implement the Crisis Management Plan provided for in Part II of the Programme of the 15th Government that was approved by the Seimas resolution No. XI-52 of 9 December 2008. Through the Crisis Management Plan attempts were made to reduce the state budget allocations for the work remuneration and to stabilise the financial system of the state, as well as to use state funds in a more rational manner.

The Appendix (its wording of 28 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009) to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges established the following coefficients (in base amounts) of the remuneration of justices of the Constitutional Court and those of the positional salaries of judges of courts of general jurisdiction and of specialised courts:

– regarding the President of the Constitutional Court (or the justice substituting him)—22.7 and a justice of the same court—20.6;

– regarding the President of the Supreme Court of Lithuania or the justice substituting him—19.1, the chairperson of a division of the same court—17.78, and a justice of the same court—16.9;

– regarding the President of Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania—18.39, the Deputy President of the same court—17.34, and a judge of the same court—16.46;

– regarding the President of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania or the judge substituting him—17.78, the chairperson of a division of the same court—16.9, and a judge of the same court—16.02;

– regarding the president of a regional court or the judge substituting him—16.9, the chairperson of a division of the same court—16.02, and a judge of the same court—15.14;

– regarding the president of a regional administrative court—16.9, the deputy president of the same court—16.02, and a judge of the same court—15.14;

– regarding the president of a local court wherein there are 15 and more judges—15.58, the deputy president of the same court—14.08, and a judge of the same court—12.5;

– regarding the president of a local court wherein there are 14 and fewer judges—14.7, the deputy president of the same court—13.46, and a judge of the same court—12.5.

  1. On 17 July 2009, the Seimas adopted the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges. By means of Article 1 (it came into force on 1 August 2009) of the same law the coefficients of the remuneration and those of the positional salaries of judges were reduced a second time. From the explanatory note to the draft of this law it is clear that the said draft law was prepared in view of the deteriorating economic and financial situation of this country and in the light of the decisions reached at the Seimas plenary sitting of 23 June 2009 and the Government’s meeting with representatives of trade unions, which took place on 2 July 2009.

The Appendix (wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges established the following coefficients (in base amounts) of the remuneration of justices of the Constitutional Court and those of the positional salaries of judges of courts of general jurisdiction and of specialised courts:

– regarding the President of the Constitutional Court (or the justice substituting him)—21 and a justice of the same court—19.06;

– regarding the President of the Supreme Court of Lithuania or the justice substituting him—17.67, the chairperson of a division of the same court—16.45, and a justice of the same court—15.63;

– regarding the President of Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania—17.01, the Deputy President of the same court—16.07, and a judge of the same court—15.23;

– regarding the President of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania or the judge substituting him—16.45, the chairperson of a division of the same court—15.63, and a judge of the same court—14.98;

– regarding the president of a regional court or the judge substituting him—15.63, the chairperson of a division of the same court—14.98, and a judge of the same court—14;

– regarding the president of a regional administrative court—15.63, the deputy president of the same court—14.98, and a judge of the same court—14;

– regarding the president of a local court wherein there are 15 and more judges—14.41, the deputy president of the same court—13.02, and a judge of the same court—11.56;

– regarding the president of a local court wherein there are 14 and fewer judges—13.6, the deputy president of the same court—12.45, and a judge of the same court—11.56.

  1. Article 2 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009) used to establish that this law had to come into force on 1 August 2009 and that it had to be valid until 31 December 2010. It should be noted that the validity of the reduced coefficients of the positional salary (remuneration) of judges established in Article 2 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009) was prolonged three times through the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) that amended Article 2 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009). The legal regulation establishing the reduced coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of judges is valid at present as well.

It should also be noted that Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009) provided (and provides) to apply the coefficients of the positional salary (remuneration) that had been in force prior to 30 April 2009, however, the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) that amended Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges postponed that three times.

  1. To summarise the legal regulation that reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of judges, it should be noted that at both times (as from 1 May 2009 and as from 1 August 2009) the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of all judges were reduced. In the table given below it can be seen how the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of judges were reduced after the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009) and the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009) had been adopted:

Positions

The coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) prior to the application of the measures of their reduction (Appendix 1 to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 6 November 2008)

The coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) as from 1 May 2009

(Appendix 1 to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009)

The extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) as from 1 May 2009 (in percentage, in comparison with Appendix 1 to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 6 November 2008)

The coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) as from 1 August 2009

(Appendix 1 to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009)

The extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary (remuneration) as from 1 August 2009 (in percentage, in comparison with Appendix 1 to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009)

The overall extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary (remuneration) (in coefficient units, in comparison with Appendix 1 to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 6 November 2008)

The overall extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary (remuneration) (in percentage, in comparison with Appendix 1 to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 6 November 2008)

President of the Constitutional Court

32.3

22.7

-29.72

21

-7.49

-11.3

-34.98

Justice of the Constitutional Court

29.35

20.6

-29.81

19.06

-7.48

-10.29

-35.06

President of the Supreme Court of Lithuania

21.7

19.1

-11.98

17.67

-7.49

-4.03

-18.57

President of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania

20.9

18.39

-12.01

17.01

-7.5

-3.89

-18.61

Chairperson of a division of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, President of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania

20.2

17.78

-11.98

16.45

-7.48

-3.75

-18.56

Deputy President of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania

19.7

17.34

-11.98

16.07

-7.32

-3.63

-18.43

Justice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, chairperson of a division of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, president of a regional court, president of a regional administrative court

19.2

16.9

-11.98

15.63

-7.51

-3.57

-18.59

Judge of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania

18.7

16.46

-11.98

15.23

-7.47

-3.47

-18.56

Judge of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, chairperson of a division of a regional court, deputy president of a regional administrative court

18.2

16.02

-11.98

14.98

-6.49

-3.22

-17.69

President of a local court (courts wherein there are 15 and more judges)

17.7

15.58

-11.98

14.41

-7.51

-3.29

-18.59

Judge of a regional court, judge of a regional administrative court

17.2

15.14

-11.98

14

-7.53

-3.2

-18.6

President of a local court (courts wherein there are 14 and fewer judges)

16.7

14.7

-11.98

13.6

-7.48

-3.1

-18.56

Deputy president of a local court (courts wherein there are 15 and more judges)

16

14.08

-12

13.02

-7.53

-2.98

-18.63

Deputy president of a local court (courts wherein there are 14 and fewer judges)

15.3

13.46

-12.03

12.45

-7.5

-2.85

-18.63

Judge of a local court

14.2

12.5

-11.97

11.56

-7.52

-2.64

-18.59

Thus, the impugned legal regulation established in the Appendix (its wording of 28 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges made the following impact on the reduction of the remuneration of judges (where the changes in the base amount are not assessed):

– all the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) for all the positions of judges were reduced;

– if assessed at the percentage amount, the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) for the positions of judges were reduced to a different extent: from by 17.69 percent (as regards a judge of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, the chairperson of a division of a regional court, the deputy president of a regional administrative court) to by 35.06 percent (as regards a justice of the Constitutional Court);

– if assessed at the percentage amount, the coefficients of the positional salaries for positions of judges were reduced to a larger extent than the coefficients of the positional salaries of most of the state servants of positional categories 11–20 (from by 0.58 percent to by 18.92 percent); if assessed at the percentage amount, the coefficients of the remuneration of the President of the Constitutional Court and a justice of this court were reduced to a much larger extent (by 34.98 percent and 35.06 percent respectively) than the coefficients of the positional salaries of state servants;

– the coefficients of the positional salaries for the positions of most of the judges (i.e. the judges of courts of general jurisdiction and of specialised courts) were reduced from by 17.69 percent (as regards a judge of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, the chairperson of a division of a regional court, the deputy president of a regional administrative court) to by 18.63 percent (the deputy president of a local court);

– the coefficient of the remuneration of the President of the Constitutional Court was reduced by 34.98 percent and that of a justice of the Constitutional Court—by 35.06 percent, thus, if assessed at the percentage amount, these coefficients were reduced clearly to a larger extent than the coefficients of the positional salaries for the positions of other judges; it should be noted that the coefficients of the remuneration of the President of the Constitutional Court and of justices of this court that were reduced to this extent were essentially approximated to the coefficient of the positional salary of the President of the Supreme Court of Lithuania (prior to the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of judges, the coefficient of the remuneration of a justice of the Constitutional Court used to be 35.25 percent bigger than the coefficient of the positional salary of the President of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, meanwhile, after the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of judges had been reduced, the said difference became 7.87 percent). It should also be noted that such legal regulation, in view of the fact that no additional pay for the years served for the State of Lithuania is provided for the President of the Constitutional Court and justices of this court, creates preconditions for the substantial approximating of the remuneration of the President of the Constitutional Court and justices of this court to the remuneration of some judges of courts of general jurisdiction and of specialised courts (the President of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the President of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the chairperson of a division of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the President of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, the Deputy President of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, a justice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the chairperson of a division of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, the president of a regional court, the president of a regional administrative court, and a judge of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania), who are at present paid the maximum possible additional pay (21 percent now and 24 percent due in 2014) or substantial additional pay for the years served for the State of Lithuania. In addition, the said legal regulation creates preconditions for the equalising of the remuneration of the President of the Constitutional Court and justices of this court with, or even making it smaller than the remuneration of the said judges of courts of general jurisdiction and of specialised courts.

  1. It should be noted that, in view of the then deteriorating economic and financial situation of the state, when, inter alia, the funds for financing the needs provided for in the state budget law used to be not collected, judges and state servants were not the only ones for whom the legal acts that were passed in 2009 reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration).

10.1. On 23 April 2009, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Work Remuneration of State Politicians and State Officials through Article 1 whereof, that came into force on 1 May 2009, it reduced, inter alia, the coefficients of the positional salaries of state politicians (with the exception of municipal mayors and deputy mayors). On 17 July 2009, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Work Remuneration of State Politicians and State Officials through Article 1 whereof it reduced, inter alia, the coefficients of the positional salaries of municipal mayors and deputy mayors. In addition, the same law reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries of other state politicians a second time.

10.1.1. From the said legal regulation through which the coefficients of the positional salaries of state politicians were reduced it is clear that, if assessed at the percentage amount, the coefficients of the positional salaries of different groups of state politicians were reduced to a different extent:

– the coefficients of the positional salaries of members of the Seimas and the Government were reduced twice; they were reduced from by 20.77 percent (the coefficients of the positional salaries of the deputy chairpersons of Seimas standing commissions and deputy chairpersons of Seimas political groups, where the size of the political group is from 7 to 10 members, were reduced from 19.6 down to 15.53, those of the chairpersons of Seimas political groups, where the size of the political group is from 21 to 30 members, and those of deputy chairpersons of Seimas political groups, where the size of the political group is from 31 to 40 members, were reduced from 20.7 down to 16.40) to by 20.82 percent (the coefficients of the positional salaries of the chairpersons of Seimas political groups, where the size of the political group is more than 40 members, were reduced from 21.9 down to 17.34 and those of members of the Seimas were reduced from 19.4 down to 15.36);

– the coefficients of the positional salaries of municipal mayors and deputy mayors were reduced once; they were reduced by 10 percent (the coefficients of the positional salaries of mayors, which were 10.5 and 12.2, were respectively reduced down to 9.45 and 10.98, whereas the coefficients of the positional salaries of deputy mayors, which were 8.8 and 10.5, were respectively reduced down to 7.92 and 9.45).

10.1.2. In this context it should be mentioned that the amount of the monthly work remuneration of the President of the Republic established in Article 15 of the Law on the President of the Republic (wording of 11 November 2008) has not been reduced.

10.1.3. When the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of judges is compared with the extent of the reduction of the positional salaries of state politicians, it should be noted that:

– if assessed at the percentage amount, the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of most of the judges (i.e. the judges of courts of general jurisdiction and of specialised courts)—from by 17.69 percent to by 18.63 percent—was substantially not different from the extent of the reduction of the coefficients (from by 20.77 percent to by 20.82 percent) of the positional salaries of one group of politicians—members of the Seimas and the Government; however, if assessed at the percentage amount, the coefficients of the remuneration of the President of the Constitutional Court and a justice of this court were reduced to a much larger extent (by 34.98 percent and 35.06 percent respectively);

– if assessed at the percentage amount, the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) for all positions of judges is much larger than that of the other group of state politicians—municipal mayors and deputy mayors.

10.2. On 23 April 2009, the Seimas adopted the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Work Remuneration of State Politicians and State Officials through Article 1 whereof, that came into force on 1 May 2009, it reduced, inter alia, the coefficients of the positional salaries of state officials. On 17 July 2009, the Seimas adopted the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Work Remuneration of State Politicians and State Officials through Article 1 whereof it reduced, inter alia, the coefficients of the positional salaries of state officials a second time.

From the said legal regulation through which the coefficients of the positional salaries of state officials were reduced it is clear that, if assessed at the percentage amount, the coefficients of the positional salaries of different groups of state officials were reduced to a different extent:

– the coefficients of the positional salaries of most of the state officials were reduced twice, those of some of the state officials (the chairpersons, deputy chairpersons and members of the state (standing) commissions and councils, who are appointed under special laws by the Seimas, the President of the Republic, and others, as well as other officials of institutions and establishments appointed by the Seimas or the President of the Republic) were reduced once;

– if assessed at the percentage amount, the coefficients of the positional salaries of state officials were reduced to a different extent: from by 2 percent (the coefficient of the positional salaries of members of the state (standing) commissions and councils, who are appointed under special laws by the Seimas, the President of the Republic, and others, as well as other officials of institutions and establishments appointed by the Seimas or the President of the Republic, was reduced from 7 down to 6.86) to by 18.62 percent (the coefficient of the positional salaries of Deputy Auditors General was reduced from 13.8 down to 11.23, that of Seimas ombudsmen was reduced from 14.5 down to 11.8, that of the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman and that of the Ombudsman for Children’s Rights were reduced from 13 down to 10.58).

10.2.1. In this context it should be noted that the legal regulation that reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state officials are also in force at present. It should also be noted that this legal regulation has been amended—a group of state officials was singled out for whom the coefficient of their positional salaries was increased in comparison with the one established before the general reduction: through the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Chapter IV of the Appendix to the Law on the Work Remuneration of State Politicians and State Officials that was adopted on 29 June 2012 and came into force on 1 August 2012, the Seimas increased, from 10.10 up to 12.3, the coefficient of the positional salaries of inter alia the Chairpersons of the Competition Council, the Public Procurement Office, the National Control Commission for Prices and Energy, the Central Electoral Commission, and the Chief Official Ethics Commission; coefficient 12.3 is bigger than coefficient 12 that had been established for the said officials prior to the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of state officials.

10.2.2. When the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of judges is compared with the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of state officials, it should be noted that:

– if assessed at the percentage amount, the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of most of the judges (i.e. the judges of courts of general jurisdiction and of specialised courts)—from by 17.69 percent to by 18.63 percent—was substantially not different from the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state officials for whom those coefficients were reduced the most (for the Auditor General, Deputy Auditors General, the Head of the Seimas Ombudsmen’s Office, Seimas Ombudsmen, the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman for Children’s Rights the said coefficients were reduced by 18.58–18.62 percent), however, it is larger or even substantially larger than the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of other state officials; if assessed at the percentage amount, the coefficients of the remuneration of the President of the Constitutional Court and a justice of this court were reduced to a much larger extent (by 34.98 percent and 35.06 percent respectively) than the coefficients of the positional salaries of state officials;

– when the legal regulation that reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of judges and state officials was in force, by means of the singling out of a certain group of state officials, where the coefficients of the positional salaries of such a group of officials was actually increased in comparison to the coefficients that had existed prior to the reduction, one contributed to the distortion of the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of judges and state officials that had existed prior to the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration).

10.3. On 23 April 2009, the Seimas adopted the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Work Remuneration of State Politicians and State Officials through Article 1 whereof, that came into force on 1 May 2009, it reduced, inter alia, the coefficients of the positional salaries of the prosecutors of the Office of the Prosecutor General; the coefficients of the positional salaries of other prosecutors were not reduced through the said law. The coefficients of the positional salaries of both the prosecutors of the Office of the Prosecutor General and other prosecutors were reduced through Article 1 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Work Remuneration of State Politicians and State Officials that was adopted by the Seimas on 17 July 2009.

From the legal regulation established in Article 1 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Work Remuneration of State Politicians and State Officials (wording of 17 July 2009) it is clear that, if assessed at the percentage amount, the coefficients of the positional salaries of prosecutors were reduced to a different extent: the coefficients of the positional salaries of the prosecutors of the Office of the Prosecutor General were reduced from by 18.55 percent (the coefficient of the positional salary of the Deputy Prosecutor General was reduced from 15.2 down to 12.38, that of a prosecutor of a department was reduced from 13.1 down to 10.67) to by 18.65 percent (the coefficient of the positional salary of the deputy chief prosecutor of a division was reduced from 14.1 down to 11.47); if assessed at the percentage amount, the coefficients of the positional salaries of other prosecutors were reduced to a smaller extent: from by 3 percent (the coefficient of the positional salaries of prosecutors of the local prosecutor’s offices of districts (towns) was reduced from 8.0 down to 7.76) to by 7.46 percent (the coefficient of the positional salary of the chief prosecutor of a regional prosecutor’s office was reduced from 11.8 down to 10.92).

10.3.1. In this context it should be noted that the legal regulation that reduced the coefficients of state politicians and officials, insofar as it is related to the establishment of the coefficients of the positional salaries of prosecutors, was amended through the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Chapter III of the Appendix to the Law on the Work Remuneration of State Politicians and State Officials that was adopted by the Seimas on 21 December 2011. The said law amended Chapter III “Positional Salaries of Prosecutors” of the Appendix to the Law on the Work Remuneration of State Politicians and State Officials. This law came into force on 1 May 2012.

It should be noted that, according to the legal regulation established in this law:

– the coefficients of the positional salaries of the prosecutors of the Office of the Prosecutor General were not reduced in substance in comparison with the coefficients reduced under Article 1 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Work Remuneration of State Politicians and State Officials (wording of 17 July 2009);

– the coefficients of the positional salaries were substantially restored (or even increased in comparison with those established prior to the reduction) for the other prosecutors—the prosecutors of regional prosecutor’s offices and the prosecutors of the local prosecutor’s offices of regional prosecutor’s offices (the former prosecutors of the local prosecutor’s offices of the cities of Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda, Šiauliai, and Panevėžys and the local prosecutor’s offices of other districts (towns))—for example, coefficient 11.97 was established for the positional salary of the chief prosecutor of a regional prosecutor’s office, whilst it used to be 11.8 prior to the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries; coefficient 11.64 was established for the positional salary of the deputy chief prosecutor of a regional prosecutor’s office, whilst it used to be 10.8 prior to the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries; coefficient 9.72 was established for the positional salary of the chief prosecutor of a local prosecutor’s office of a regional prosecutor’s office, whilst, prior to the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries, coefficient 9.8 used to be established for the positional salaries of the chief prosecutors of the local prosecutor’s offices of the cities of Vilnius, Kaunas, and Klaipėda, coefficient 9.7 used to be established for the positional salaries of the chief prosecutors of the local prosecutor’s offices of the cities of Šiauliai and Panevėžys, and coefficient 9.3 used to be established for the positional salaries of the chief prosecutors of the local prosecutor’s offices of other districts (towns); coefficient 9.54 was established for the positional salary of the deputy chief prosecutor of a local prosecutor’s office of a regional prosecutor’s office, whilst, prior to the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries, coefficient 9.3 used to be established for the positional salaries of the deputy chief prosecutors of the local prosecutor’s offices of the cities of Vilnius, Kaunas, and Klaipėda, coefficient 9.2 used to be established for the positional salaries of the deputy chief prosecutors of the local prosecutor’s offices of the cities of Šiauliai and Panevėžys, and coefficient 8.8 used to be established for the positional salaries of the chief prosecutors of the local prosecutor’s offices of other districts (towns).

10.3.2. When the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of judges is compared with the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of prosecutors, it should be noted that:

– the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of judges and the coefficients of the positional salaries of the prosecutors of the Office of the Prosecutor General were reduced twice, whereas those of the positional salaries of the prosecutors other than those of the Office of the Prosecutor General were reduced once;

– if assessed at the percentage amount, the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of most of the judges (i.e. the judges of courts of general jurisdiction and of specialised courts)—from by 17.69 percent to by 18.63 percent—was substantially not different from the extent of the reduction of the coefficients (from by 18.55 percent to by 18.65 percent) of the positional salaries of the prosecutors of the Office of the Prosecutor General, however, such extent was much larger than the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of other prosecutors (from by 3 percent to by 7.46 percent); if assessed at the percentage amount, the coefficients of the remuneration of the President of the Constitutional Court and a justice of this court were reduced to a much larger extent (by 34.98 percent and 35.06 percent respectively) than the coefficients of the positional salaries of all prosecutors;

– when the legal regulation that reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of judges was in force, by means of the singling out of a certain group of prosecutors, where the coefficients of the positional salaries of such a group of prosecutors was actually increased in comparison to the coefficients that had existed prior to the reduction, one contributed to the distortion of the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of judges and prosecutors that had existed prior to the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration).

10.4. To summarise, when the extent (if assessed at the percentage amount) of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of judges is compared with the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of state politicians, state officials, and prosecutors, it should be noted that:

– if assessed at the percentage amount, the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) for all positions of judges is much larger than that of one group of state politicians—municipal mayors and deputy mayors—and much larger than that of some state officials and the prosecutors other than those of the Office of the Prosecutor General;

– if assessed at the percentage amount, the coefficients of the remuneration of the President of the Constitutional Court and a justice of this court were reduced to a much larger extent than the coefficients of the positional salaries of all state politicians, officials, and prosecutors;

– when the legal regulation that reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of judges was in force, by means of the singling out of certain groups of state officials and prosecutors, where the coefficients of the positional salaries of such groups of officials and prosecutors was actually increased in comparison to the coefficients that had existed prior to the reduction, one contributed to the distortion of the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of judges and state officials as well as prosecutors that had existed prior to the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration).

10.5. It should be noted that the Appendix (wordings of 23 April 2009 and 17 July 2009 with subsequent amendments and supplements) to the Law on the Work Remuneration of State Politicians and State Officials is not a matter for an investigation in the constitutional justice case at issue.

VII

  1. In the constitutional justice case at issue the Constitutional Court is investigating into the compliance of the legal provisions that reduced the remuneration of state servants and judges in an extremely difficult economic and financial situation in the state with, inter alia, Paragraph 2 of Article 5, Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  2. The Constitutional Court has held that the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law integrates various values entrenched in, and protected and defended by the Constitution and the upon this principle the entire Lithuanian legal system and the Constitution itself are based (inter alia, the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 22 October 2007 and 29 June 2010). The Constitutional Court has also held on more than one occasion that the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is a universal principle; its contents become apparent in various provisions of the Constitution; the essence of this principle is the rule of law; the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is especially capacious, it comprises a range of various interrelated imperatives; this principle must be followed both in law-making and in the implementation of law.

2.1. The Constitutional Court has held on more than one occasion that the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and legal security are inseparable elements of the principle of a state under the rule of law. The constitutional principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and legal security imply the obligation of the state to secure the certainty and stability of the legal regulation, to protect the rights of persons, to respect the legitimate interests and legitimate expectations, and to fulfil any undertaken obligations for persons. If the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and legal security were not secured, the trust of the person in the state and law would not be guaranteed.

2.2. While construing the requirement (implied by the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law) for ensuring human rights and freedoms, the Constitutional Court has held on more than one occasion that the principle of proportionality, as one of the elements of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, means that the measures provided for in a law must be in line with the legitimate objectives that are important to society, that these measures must be necessary in order to reach the said objectives, and that these measures must not restrain the rights and freedoms of the person clearly more than necessary in order to reach the said objectives (inter alia, the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 31 January 2011, 29 June 2012, 15 February 2013, and 16 May 2013).

In its ruling of 28 March 2006, the Constitutional Court held that the legislature may change the legal regulation governing the salaries to various persons and may consolidate the legal regulation on the salaries that would be less favourable to these persons if it is necessary in order to ensure the vital interests of society and the state and to protect other constitutional values; however, also in such cases the legislature must keep the balance between the rights and legitimate interests of the persons for whom the less favourable legal regulation is established and the interests of society and the state, i.e. the legislature must pay heed to the requirements of the principle of proportionality.

2.3. The constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is inseparable from the principle of justice, and vice versa. The Constitutional Court has held on more than one occasion that justice is one of the basic objectives of law as means of the regulating of social relations. It is one of basic moral values and the basic foundation of a state under the rule of law. Justice may be implemented when a certain balance of interests is ensured, and when fortuity and arbitrariness, instability of social life and conflict of interests are avoided.

2.4. The contents of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law must be disclosed in conjunction with the contents of the principle of social solidarity. The Constitutional Court has held that the social solidarity principle entrenched in the Constitution implies that the burden of the fulfilment of certain obligations should also be distributed to a certain extent among members of society, however, such distribution should be constitutionally reasoned, it cannot be disproportionate, it cannot deny the social orientation of the state and the obligations to the state that arise from the Constitution (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 7 June 2007, 26 September 2007, and its decision of 20 April 2010).

  1. As mentioned before, the essence of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is the rule of law. The constitutional imperative of the rule of law means that the freedom of state power is limited by law which must be obeyed by all the entities of legal relations, including the law-making entities (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 December 2004).

3.1. Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution provides that the scope of power shall be limited by the Constitution.

While construing Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has noted on more than one occasion that the Seimas, as the legislative institution, is independent inasmuch as its powers and its wide discretion are not limited by the Constitution, inter alia, by the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the separation of powers, responsible governance, the protection of legitimate expectations, legal clarity, as well as by other principles.

It needs to be emphasised that, when it passes laws, the Seimas is bound not only by the Constitution, but also by the laws that it itself has adopted. It is an essential element of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (inter alia, the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 24 January 2003 and 24 September 2009).

3.2. The Constitutional Court has held on more than one occasion that both the Government which has the powers, under the Constitution, to execute the State Budget, and the Seimas which, under the Constitution, approves the State Budget by law, may not decide not to react to such an essential change in the economic and financial condition of the state, when due to special circumstances (an economic crisis, a natural disaster, etc.) a particularly difficult economic and financial situation occurs in the state; it goes without saying that, upon the emergence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state, there may be difficulties in the collecting of the revenue provided for in the law on the state budget (and in municipal budgets), thus, the required funds are not obtained for financing respective needs provided for in the law on the state budget (and municipal budgets).

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it should be noted that, as it was held in the Constitution Court’s ruling of 15 February 2013, possible deviations from the requirements, which are put forward to the adoption and entry into force of the laws that affect the state budget and its revenue and expenditure and which stem from the Constitution, inter alia, the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and responsible governance, may be constitutionally justifiable by the aspiration to ensure an important public interest—to guarantee the stability of public finances, not to allow the rise of an excessive budget deficit in the state due to an exceptionally difficult economic and financial situation because of the economic crisis—determining the necessity of urgent and effective decisions. The Constitutional Court also noted that in case an exceptionally difficult economic and financial situation in the state is long-termed and continues for more than one year, under the Constitution, there is no tolerance for the fact that in the course of the adopting of the laws that affect the state budget revenue and expenditure the aforementioned requirements, which stem from the Constitution, for the adoption and entry into force of these laws, would be disregarded by justifying it by a necessity for adopting urgent decisions in order to handle the consequences of the economic crisis (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 15 February 2013).

  1. The constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is also inseparable from the principle of the equality of rights of persons consolidated in the Constitution, inter alia, in Article 29 thereof. A violation of the constitutional principle of the equality of rights of persons is, at the same time, a violation of the constitutional imperatives of justice and harmonious society, thus, it is also a violation of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (inter alia, the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 6 February 2012, 14 December 2012, and 30 April 2013).
  2. Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work”.

5.1. It should be noted that the right to receive fair pay for work as consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution is related to the constitutional principle of justice and means the right of a person to receive the payment for work that would be fair in view of, inter alia, the peculiarity of the work, the complexity and amount of the work functions, the responsibility for carrying out those functions, the individualities of the held positions, and the professional level and qualification of a person. In this context it needs to be emphasised that, under the Constitution, there is no tolerance for any such legal regulation that would establish a unified or substantially the same amount of remuneration for the persons who hold the positions that are different according to the complexity and amount of the performed functions and the responsibility that falls upon them, who are of different professional level and qualification, and who are remunerated with the funds from the state or municipal budget.

5.2. In providing the construction of the right to receive fair pay for work as consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and of the contents of the principle of proportionality in the context of the reduction of the remuneration of state servants (and other employees who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget), in its ruling of 11 December 2009 and its decision of 20 April 2010, the Constitutional Court held that:

– the remuneration of state servants may be reduced on a temporary basis when a particularly difficult economic and financial situation occurs in the state, however, in such a case one must heed the requirements of the principle of proportionality; the constitutional principle of proportionality is inseparable from other norms and principles of the Constitution, inter alia, the constitutional principles of the equality of rights and justice;

– the constitutional principle of proportionality means, inter alia, that when there is a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state and when, due to this there is a necessity for a temporary reduction of the remuneration of state servants in order to secure vitally important interests of society and the state and for the protection of other constitutional values, the legislature is under obligation to establish a uniform and non-discriminatory scale of the reduction of the remuneration of state servants, according to which, with respect to all categories of state servants (and other employees financed with the funds of the state or municipal budget), the remuneration would be reduced by not violating the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration established with regard to different categories of state servants prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state;

– the constitutional institute of the state service implies a certain hierarchical system of state servants and differentiated amounts of the remuneration paid to them; the proportions of the differences in the amounts of the remuneration of state servants depend on a number of objective peculiarities of the state service, as, for instance, the character of the corresponding functions ascribed to a state institution, the complexity and extent of the functions attributed to the state servant, the responsibility for the execution of these functions, the peculiarities of the taken posts, a state servant’s professional level and qualification, etc.;

– the Constitution does not tolerate any such situations where the remuneration of state servants, when there is a difficult economic and financial situation in the state, is reduced in a disproportionate manner, inter alia, by approximating the amount of the remuneration of a state servant of high qualification, who performs a complex job, to the remuneration of a state servant of lower qualification, who performs a less complex job, or where the former remuneration is equalised with the latter, or where the remuneration of state servants of certain groups is reduced by taking into consideration not the entire work remuneration received, but only individual constituent parts of the work remuneration of state servants, etc.; in such situations not only the constitutional principles of proportionality, the equality of rights and justice would be denied, but one would also deviate from the constitutional concept of the state service as well as from the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution consolidating the human right to receive fair pay for work;

– the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, justice and proportionality mean that one is allowed to establish a limit upon the amount of the remuneration of a state servant below which the remuneration established for state servants (and other employees who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget) would not be reduced even when there is a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state; in establishing this limit, one has to take account of the circumstance that, under the Constitution, one is not allowed to establish any such legal regulation to the effect that the remuneration of a state servant becomes reduced to an amount that would not secure the minimum socially acceptable needs and the living conditions compatible with human dignity.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it should be noted that these provisions of the official constitutional doctrine disclose the requirements, stemming from the Constitution, for the legal regulation governing the reduction of the amount of the remuneration of state servants upon the emergence of an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state are also applicable mutatis mutandis to the legal regulation governing the reduction of the remuneration of judges.

5.3. In its ruling of 20 April 2010, the Constitutional Court held that the provision of the official constitutional doctrine—the reduction of the work remuneration must be temporary—implies that in cases when the economic and financial situation of the state deteriorates considerably and the legislature decides to amend the legal regulation governing the remuneration to various persons and to entrench a less favourable legal regulation with respect to these persons, i.e. adopts a decision to reduce the work remuneration of officials of the institutions that are financed with the funds of state and municipal budgets (and of other employees who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget) as well as that of state servants, the reduced remuneration may only be paid on a temporary basis, i.e. until there is a certain extreme situation in the state; when an especially difficult economic and financial situation is over, the amounts of the work remuneration of officials of the institutions that are financed with the funds of state and municipal budgets (and of other employees who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget) as well as that of state servants, which were established in the state prior to occurrence of the said situation, must be applied as before.

In its decision of 20 April 2010, the Constitutional Court also held that the provision that the reduction of the work remuneration must be temporary may not be interpreted as meaning that the state, after the legislature has reduced the remuneration of officials of the institutions that are financed with the funds of state and municipal budgets (and of other employees who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget) as well as that of state servants, is released from the duty to look for ways of the securing of the accumulation of the funds necessary in order to pay the remuneration in the amounts that had been prior to their reduction; quite to the contrary, if, before the end of the economic crisis, there arises an opportunity to accumulate (receive) the funds necessary to pay the remuneration in the amounts that had been before the reduction of the remuneration, the legal regulation governing the reduction of the work remuneration of officials of the institutions that are financed with the funds of state and municipal budgets (and of other employees who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget) as well as that of state servants must be repealed.

5.4. It has been mentioned that the constitutional principle of social solidarity implies that the burden of the fulfilment of certain obligations to a certain extent should also be distributed among members of society, however, such distribution should be constitutionally reasoned, it cannot be disproportionate, it cannot deny the social orientation of the state and the obligations to the state that stem from the Constitution. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it should be noted that, upon the emergence of an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state, and when, due to this, the state is incapable of fulfilling, to the full extent, its obligations undertaken to members of society, inter alia, the obligations related to the payment of the remuneration to state servants and judges, the constitutional principle of social solidarity implies a proportionate distribution of the incurred losses among members of society, inter alia, among state servants and judges.

5.4.1. Alongside, it needs to be noted that the constitutional principle of social solidarity, when construed in the context of other constitutional principles (inter alia, those of proportionality and justice), does not imply any social egalitarianism, inter alia, it does not deny the requirement for the differentiation of the amounts of remuneration paid with the funds from the state or municipal budget, where one takes into consideration the peculiarity of the functions performed by the persons that receive it, the complexity and amount of the performed functions, the responsibility that falls upon them for the performing of those functions, the peculiarities of the position held, as well as the professional level and qualification of the persons holding those positions; one must also heed this requirement in establishing the measures of the reduction for the pay for work when there occurs an extremely difficult economic and financial situation.

5.4.2. It needs to be emphasised that the constitutional principle of social solidarity, if construed in the context of the constitutional principle of the equality of rights of persons, implies a duty of the legislature to establish a non-discriminatory extent of the reduction of remuneration of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget. Such a non-discriminatory extent of the reduction means that the remuneration is reduced in a proportionate manner for all categories of those persons regardless of where (in which state or municipal institutions) they work and which positions they hold.

5.5. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it should be noted that, inter alia, the following requirements for the legal regulation, established by the legislature, governing the reduction, due to an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state, of the remuneration of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget stem from the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, the provision being construed in conjunction with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights, justice, and proportionality:

– in the course of the establishing of a certain extent of reduction of the remuneration, one should take into consideration the fact that the losses incurred by the society due to an especially difficult economic and financial situation must be distributed among its members, inter alia, among state servants and judges in a proportionate manner;

– the reduction of the remuneration must be proportionate, inter alia, the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of different categories of persons who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget that used to be established prior to the emergence of an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state must be retained; the amount of the remuneration of a person with high qualification, who performs complex work, must not be approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of a person with lower qualification, who performs less complicated work; any such reduction of the remuneration of certain groups of state servants, where one takes into account not the entire work remuneration received, but only individual constituent parts of the work remuneration of the state servant, is not allowed;

– the reduction of the remuneration must be non-discriminatory: the remuneration must be reduced in a in a proportionate manner for all categories of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget regardless of where (in which state or municipal institutions) they work and which positions they hold;

– the requirement for establishing the proportionate and non-discriminatory reduction of the remuneration of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget implies, inter alia, the fact that the proportionate reduction of the remuneration must retain the proportions, which used to be established prior to the emergence of an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state, of the amounts of the remuneration of the persons of the same category (as, for instance, state servants and judges) who hold different positions.

  1. The Constitutional Court has held on more than one occasion that the right to receive fair pay for work as consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution is a pre-condition for implementing most of the other constitutional rights, inter alia, that this right is one of the most important pre-conditions for implementing the right to ownership as consolidated in Article 23 of the Constitution.

In its ruling of 20 March 2007, the Constitutional Court held that the right of every human being to receive fair pay for work that is entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution must be guaranteed for a state servant to the extent no less than for other employees; under the Constitution, a right appears in regard to the person who has completed a commissioned task to demand that the whole work remuneration (remuneration) which is due according to the legal acts be paid to him; this right of the person is guaranteed, protected and defended as the right of ownership on the grounds of Article 23 of the Constitution. It should be noted that the guarantees established for other persons are applicable to judges to no less extent.

In view of the connection of the right of every human being to receive fair pay for work with the right of ownership, in the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it should be noted that any legal regulation conflicting with the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution would create pre-conditions for violating Article 23 of the Constitution, too.

  1. In the constitutional justice case at issue one impugns, inter alia, the compliance of the legal provisions governing the reduction of the remuneration of judges upon the emergence of an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state with Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution which provides that, while administering justice, the judge and courts shall be independent.

7.1. The Constitutional Court has formulated in its acts a broad official constitutional doctrine of the independence of judges and courts in which the constitutional imperative of the independence of judges and courts is construed in the context of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 22 October 2007, 29 June 2010, and 14 February 2011).

7.2. The Constitutional Court has noted on more than one occasion that the independence of judges and courts is not a privilege, but one of the most important obligations of judges and courts, which stems from the constitutionally guaranteed right of a person, who believes that his rights or freedoms are violated, to an impartial arbiter of the dispute who would settle in essence the emerged legal dispute under the Constitution and laws (inter alia, the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 22 October 2007, 29 June 2010, and 14 February 2011). The independence of judges is ensured, inter alia, by means of the consolidation of the self-governance of the judiciary as a fully-fledged branch of power, and its financial and technical provision, and by means of the establishing of the inviolability of the term of powers of judges and the inviolability of the person of a judge, as well as by means of the establishing of the social (material) guarantees for judges (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 22 October 2007 and 14 February 2011).

7.3. It has also been noted on more than one occasion that a judge, who is obligated to consider conflicts arising in society as well as those between a person and the state, must be not only highly professionally qualified and of impeccable reputation, but also materially independent and feel secure as to his future (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 12 July 2001, 22 October 2007, 29 June 2010, and 14 February 2011). Under the Constitution, the material and social guarantees established for judges must be such so that they would be in line with the constitutional status of the judge and his dignity (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 8 August 2006, its rulings of 22 October 2007 and 29 June 2010).

The Constitutional Court has held on more than one occasion that the constitutional imperative of the constitutional protection of the remuneration and other social (material) guarantees of judges stems from the principle of the independence of judges and courts established in the Constitution (inter alia, in Article 109 thereof). By means of this principle one attempts to protect the judges who administer justice from any influence of the legislative and executive branches of power, as well as from that of other state establishments and officials, political and public organisations, commercial economic structures, and other legal and natural persons. In its rulings of, inter alia, 29 June 2010 and 14 February 2011, the Constitutional Court held that the state has a duty to establish such remuneration for judges which would be in conformity with the status of the judiciary and judges, with the functions exercised by them and their responsibility.

7.4. In its decisions of 12 January 2000 and 8 August 2006 and its ruling of 14 February 2011, the Constitutional Court noted that the notion “remuneration of the judge” includes all the payments paid to judges with the funds from the state budget. When it regulates the relations connected with the establishing of the remuneration of judges, the legislature may establish that the remuneration—a social (material) guarantee of the judge—is comprised of not one, but several constituent parts, inter alia, the positional salary, additional pay, and extra pay. under the Constitution, the reduction of some constituent part of the remuneration of judges by means of raising another constituent part of the remuneration of judges, where this remuneration of judges does not decrease, does not mean any reduction in the remuneration of judges as their social (material) guarantee (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 14 February 2011).

7.5. In its rulings of 22 October 2007 and 14 February 2011, the Constitutional Court held that the social (material) guarantees of judges may be differentiated (in case one pays heed to the Constitution) according to the criteria not connected with the administration of justice in the course of the settling of cases, as for example, according to the duration of a person’s position as a judge, however, this does not at all mean that the criterion of the duration of a person’s position as a judge may be replaced by any other criterion that is different in substance. Under the Constitution, inter alia, the principle of the equal legal status of judges, the principles for setting the remuneration of judges (whatever the system of the courts they belong to), inter alia, the constituent parts of the remuneration, must be the same (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 14 February 2011).

7.6. The Constitution prohibits the reduction of the remuneration and other social (material) guarantees of judges; any attempts to reduce the remuneration of judges or their other social (material) guarantees, or any limitation upon the financing of courts should be treated as an encroachment upon the independence of judges and courts (inter alia, the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 28 March 2006, its decision of 8 August 2006, and its ruling of 14 February 2011).

However, the Constitutional Court has also held that in case of a difficult economic and financial situation, the financing of all the institutions implementing state powers that are financed with the funds from the budget, as well as the financing of various spheres that are financed with the funds from the state or municipal budget, should normally be revised and reduced; if one established any such legal regulation to the effect that only the reduction of the financing of courts or only the reduction of the remuneration and pensions of judges would not be allowed in case of an extremely difficult economic and financial situation in the state, it would mean that courts would groundlessly be singled out from among other institutions that implement state power, and judges—from among other persons that participate in implementing the powers of the corresponding institutions of state power; the consolidation of such an exceptional situation of courts (judges) would not be in line with the requirements for an open, fair and harmonious civil society and the imperatives of justice; the worsening of the financial and material-technical conditions for the functioning of courts that are provided for by law and the reduction of the remuneration of judges are allowed only by means of a law and one is allowed to do so only on a temporary basis for the period of time when the economic and financial condition of the state is extremely difficult; such reduction of the remuneration must not give rise to any preconditions for the violation of the independence of courts by any other state institutions and their officials; even in the case of an extremely difficult economic and financial situation in the state, neither the financing of courts nor the remuneration of judges may be reduced to the extent that the courts would no longer be able to implement their constitutional function and obligation—to administer justice—or the possibility of the courts to do that would be restricted (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 28 March 2006 and 22 October 2007).

7.7. In this context it should be noted that, as mentioned before, these provisions of the official constitutional doctrine disclose the requirements, stemming from the Constitution, for the legal regulation governing the reduction of the amount of the remuneration of state servants upon the emergence of an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state are also applicable mutatis mutandis to the establishing of the legal regulation governing the reduction of the amount of the remuneration of, inter alia, judges. Consequently, the reduction of the remuneration of judges must not be disproportionate or discriminatory; inter alia, the remuneration may not be reduced only for judges, or only for the judges of certain courts, or only for the judges performing certain duties; the proportions of the amounts of salaries established at the time prior to the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state for the judges performing different duties (for the judges of different systems of courts and/or of different levels of courts), as well as the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration established for the different categories of judges and other persons (inter alia, state servants, politicians, and officials) who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget, must be retained. Any failure to observe the said requirements should be regarded as an encroachment upon the independence of judges and courts, thus, inter alia, also as a violation of Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

VIII

On the compliance of 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 (wording of 17 July 2009) with Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution, as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

  1. It has been mentioned that in the constitutional justice case at issue the petitioners impugn, inter alia, the compliance of Article 1 of the 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 (wording of 17 July 2009), insofar as it established the base amount of LTL 450 of the positional salary (remuneration) of state politicians, judges, state officials, and state servants that was applicable for the period from 1 August 2009 until 31 December 2009, with Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution, as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  2. It has been mentioned that the draft of the impugned 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 was prepared in view of the deteriorating economic and financial situation of the state, where, inter alia, the collecting of the revenue for the funding of the needs provided for in the law on the state budget had ended in failure. Article 1 of this law reduced the base amount applicable in 2009 from LTL 475 down to LTL 450 for the period from 1 August 2009 until 31 December 2009; if this base amount is compared with the one established for 2008 prior to the occurrence of the especially difficult economic and financial situation (LTL 490), it is obvious that it is smaller by LTL 40 (8.16 percent); this law reduced, as from 1 August 2009, the positional salaries of state politicians, judges of courts of general jurisdiction and specialised courts, state officials and state servants, as well as the remuneration of the justices of the Constitutional Court and the service remuneration of servicemen, if assessed at the percentage amount, to the same extent (in a proportionate manner) and for the same time period.
  3. The petitioners substantiate their doubts about the compliance of Article 1 of the 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 with the Constitution by the fact that, in view of the procedure of its adoption, the said law is not in line with Article 3 of the Law on the Remuneration of Judges which provides, inter alia, that the base amount of the remuneration and positional salary applied for the calculation of the remuneration of judges should be approved for the subsequent year; according to the petitioners, through the impugned legal regulation the legislature disregarded the constitutional imperative of the enacting of laws according to the procedure established by law and violated the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution that provides that the scope of power shall be limited by the Constitution, and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution, according to which, while administering justice, the judge and courts shall be independent.
  4. It has been mentioned that Article 3 (wording of 19 December 2008) of the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 6 November 2008) provides, inter alia, that the base amount applied for the calculation of the remuneration of judges should only be approved for the subsequent year; this article does not provide that even after substantial deterioration of the economic and financial situation in the state the base amount applied to the calculation of the remuneration of judges may be reduced in the current year. Thus, it needs to be held that Article 1 of the Law Amending Article 3 of on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants deviated from the requirement of the approving of the base amount applied for the calculation of the remuneration of judges for the subsequent year only, which had been established in Article 3 (wording of 19 December 2008) of the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 6 November 2008).
  5. It has been mentioned that, while construing Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has noted on more than one occasion that the Seimas, as the legislative institution, is independent inasmuch as its powers and its wide discretion are not limited by the Constitution, inter alia, by the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the separation of powers, responsible governance, the protection of legitimate expectations, legal clarity, as well as by other principles; when it passes laws, the Seimas is bound not only by the Constitution, but also by the laws that it itself has adopted.

It has also been mentioned that possible deviations from the requirements, which are put forward to the adoption and entry into force of the laws affecting the state budget and its revenue and expenditure and which stem from the Constitution, inter alia, from the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and responsible governance, may be constitutionally justifiable by the aspiration, determining the necessity of urgent and effective decisions, to ensure an important public interest—to guarantee the stability of public finances, not to allow the rise of an excessive budget deficit in the state due to an exceptionally difficult economic and financial situation because of the economic crisis. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, possible deviations from the imperative, stemming from Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, that, when it passes laws, the Seimas is bound by the laws that it itself has adopted, are allowed, however, they are allowed only in such exceptional cases where, due to a very difficult economic and financial situation in the state, one fails to collect the revenue for the financing of the respective needs provided for in the law on the state budget (and municipal budgets), inter alia, for the payment of the remuneration of state servants, judges, state politicians, servicemen and of the officials of the institutions that are financed with the funds of state and municipal budgets.

It has also been mentioned that the impugned Article 1 of the Law Amending Article 3 of on the Base Amount, Applicable in 2009, of the Positional Salary (Remuneration) of State Politicians, Judges, State Officials and State Servants (wording of 17 July 2009), through which the base amount applied, inter alia, for the calculation of the remuneration of judges was reduced for the current year, had been adopted in view of the deteriorating economic and financial situation of the state, where, inter alia, the collecting of the revenue for the funding of the needs provided for in the Law on the State Budget had ended in failure. Thus, even though this law deviated from the requirement of the approving of the base amount applied for the calculation of the remuneration of judges for the subsequent year only, which had been established in Article 3 (wording of 19 December 2008) of the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 6 November 2008), such deviation from the imperative, stemming from Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, that, when it passes laws, the Seimas is bound by the laws that it itself has adopted, is constitutionally justifiable by the aspiration, determining the necessity of urgent and effective decisions, to ensure an important public interest—to guarantee the stability of public finances, not to allow the rise of an excessive budget deficit in the state due to an exceptionally difficult economic and financial situation because of the economic crisis.

  1. It has been mentioned that the independence of judges and courts as established in Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution is not a privilege; upon the emergence of an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state, and when, due to this, the state is incapable of fulfilling, to the full extent, its obligations undertaken to members of society, inter alia, the obligations related to the payment of the remuneration to judges, the constitutional principle of social solidarity implies a proportionate distribution of the incurred losses among members of society, inter alia, among judges. On the other hand, as mentioned before, the reduction of the remuneration of judges must not be either disproportionate or discriminatory; the disregarding of these requirements should be considered as an encroachment on the independence of judges and courts.

It has also been mentioned that, according to Article 1 of the 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, as from 1 August 2009, the positional salaries of state politicians, judges of courts of general jurisdiction and of specialised courts, state officials, and state servants, the remuneration of justices of the Constitutional Court and the service remuneration of servicemen, if assessed at the percentage amount, were reduced to the same extent (in a proportionate manner) and for the same period; thus, there is no ground for stating that the extent of the reduction of the remuneration of judges as established by the said law was either disproportionate or discriminatory. It has also been mentioned that the imperative of independence of judges and courts as consolidated in Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution should be construed in the context of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law; Article 1 of the 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 made a deviation from the imperative, stemming, inter alia, from the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, that, when it passes laws, the Seimas is bound by the laws that it itself has adopted, however, this deviation is constitutionally justifiable by the aspiration, determining the necessity of urgent and effective decisions, to ensure an important public interest—to guarantee the stability of public finances, not to allow the rise of an excessive budget deficit in the state due to an exceptionally difficult economic and financial situation because of the economic crisis. Consequently, there is also no ground for stating that through Article 1 of the 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 one has encroached upon the independence of judges and courts that is consolidated in Article 109 of the Constitution.

  1. In the light of the foregoing arguments, the conclusion should be drawn that Article 1 of the 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, insofar as it established the base amount of LTL 450 of the positional salary (remuneration) of state politicians, judges, state officials, and state servants that was applicable for the period from 1 August 2009 until 31 December 2009, was not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

IX

On the compliance of Annex 1 (its wording of 23 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the State Service with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

  1. It has been mentioned that in the constitutional justice case at issue the petitioners impugn, inter alia, the compliance of Annex 1 (its wording of 23 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the State Service, insofar as it established the different extent of the reduction of the remuneration of state servants, with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  2. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it has been noted that, inter alia, the following requirements for the legal regulation, established by the legislature, governing the reduction, due to an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state, of the remuneration of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget stem from the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, the provision being construed in conjunction with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights, justice, and proportionality:

– in the course of the establishing of a certain extent of reduction of the remuneration, one should take into consideration the fact that the losses incurred by the society due to an especially difficult economic and financial situation must be distributed among its members, inter alia, among state servants in a proportionate manner; the reduction of the remuneration must be proportionate, inter alia, the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of different categories of persons who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget that used to be established prior to the emergence of an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state must be retained; the amount of the remuneration of a person with high qualification, who performs complex work, must not be approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of a person with lower qualification, who performs less complicated work;

– the requirement for establishing the proportionate and non-discriminatory reduction of the remuneration of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget implies, inter alia, the fact that the proportionate reduction of the remuneration must retain the proportions, which used to be established prior to the emergence of an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state, of the amounts of the remuneration of the persons of the same category (as, for instance, state servants) who hold different positions.

  1. It has been mentioned that through the impugned legal regulation, through the established Annex 1 (its wording of 23 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009) to the Law on the State Service that reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of positional categories 15–20, and through Annex 1 (wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the State Service that established the reduced coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of positional categories 11–20:

– only the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of higher positional categories (11–20) were reduced, however, the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of positional categories 1–10 were not reduced;

– the measures of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of categories 11–20 were applied in an unequal manner: the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of categories 11–14 were reduced once, whilst with regard of the state servants of categories 15–20 this measure was applied twice;

– the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of positional categories 11–20 were reduced, if assessed at the percentage amount, to different extent: from by 0.58 percent for the state servants of category 11 until by 18.92 percent for the state servants of category 20;

– the different extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of the state servants of positional categories 11–20, if assessed at the percentage amount, depended on the place of the positional categories in the system thereof: the higher the positional category (i.e. the more complex and more responsible functions the state servants of a respective category must perform, and the bigger professional requirements, inter alia, the necessary level of education, are raised for them), the larger extent of the reduction of the coefficient of the positional salary established for this position.

  1. Thus, the impugned legal regulation that was consolidated in Annex 1 (its wording of 23 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009) to the Law on the State Service, which had established the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary of the state servants of the positions of categories 15–20 and in Annex 1 (wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the State Service, which had established the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary of the state servants of the positions of categories 11–20, laid down a disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of state servants, inter alia, violated the proportions (i.e., the proportions that had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state) of the amounts of the remuneration for the different positions attributed to the categories of the state servants and approximated the amount of the remuneration of high qualification state servants performing difficult tasks to the remuneration of lower qualification persons performing less difficult tasks.

It needs to be held that the impugned legal regulation disregarded the requirements, which stem from the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution (the provision being construed in conjunction with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights, and proportionality), for the legal regulation through which the remuneration of state servants is reduced due to the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state.

  1. In the light of the foregoing arguments, the conclusion should be drawn that Annex 1 (its wording of 23 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009) to the Law on the State Service, which had established the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary of the state servants of the positions of categories 15–20, insofar as such legal regulation had reduced the remuneration of state servants in a disproportionate manner, was in conflict, whilst Annex 1 (wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the State Service, which has established the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary of the state servants of the positions of categories 11–20, insofar as such legal regulation has reduced the remuneration of state servants in a disproportionate manner, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  2. It has been mentioned that Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2009) provided (and provides) that the coefficients of the positional salaries of state servants valid prior to 30 April 2009 would (will) be applicable again, however, the entry into force of this legal regulation was postponed three times by means of the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) amending Article 3 of the Law Amending Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service.

Having held that Annex 1 (its wording of 23 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009) to the Law on the State Service, which had established the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary of the state servants of the positions of categories 15–20, insofar as such legal regulation had reduced the remuneration of state servants in a disproportionate manner, was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, on the grounds of the same arguments one should hold that Paragraph 2 (wordings of 23 April 2009, 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of Article 3 of the Law Amending Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

It has also been mentioned that the validity of the legal regulation established in Paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 17 July 2009), through which the period of the validity of the reduced coefficients of the positional salaries of state servants had been established, was prolonged three times by means of the second paragraphs of the first articles of the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) amending Article 4 of the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service. The legal regulation establishing the reduced coefficients of the positional salaries of state servants is valid at present as well.

Having held that Annex 1 (wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the State Service, which has established the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary of the state servants of the positions of categories 11–20, insofar as such legal regulation has reduced the remuneration of state servants in a disproportionate manner, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, on the grounds of the same arguments one should hold that Paragraph 3 (wordings of 17 July 2009, 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of Article 4 of the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

X

On the compliance of Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

  1. It has been mentioned that in the constitutional justice case at issue the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, a petitioner, impugns, inter alia, the compliance of Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  2. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it has been noted that, inter alia, the following requirements for the legal regulation, established by the legislature, governing the reduction, due to an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state, of the remuneration of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget stem from the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, the provision being construed in conjunction with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights, justice, and proportionality:

– in the course of the establishing of a certain extent of reduction of the remuneration, one should take into consideration the fact that the losses incurred by the society due to an especially difficult economic and financial situation must be distributed among its members, inter alia, among state servants, in a proportionate manner; the reduction of the remuneration must be proportionate, inter alia, the amount of the remuneration of a person with high qualification, who performs complex work, must not be approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of a person with lower qualification, who performs less complicated work; any such reduction of the remuneration of certain groups of state servants, where one takes into account not the entire work remuneration received, but only individual constituent parts of the work remuneration of the state servant, is not allowed;

– the requirement for establishing the proportionate and non-discriminatory reduction of the remuneration of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget implies, inter alia, the fact that the proportionate reduction of the remuneration must retain the proportions, which used to be established prior to the emergence of an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state, of the amounts of the remuneration of the persons of the same category (as, for instance, state servants) who hold different positions.

  1. It has been mentioned that the impugned legal regulation, established in Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service, that reduced the amount of the additional pay for the qualification class, a constituent part of the remuneration of state servants, exerted the following influence on the reduction of the overall work remuneration of state servants (where the possible additional pay and extra pay other than the additional pay for the qualification class are not taken into consideration, also where the changes in the base amount and/or the coefficients of the positional salary are not assessed):

– as regards the state servants with the first qualification class, after the additional pay for this qualification class had been reduced from 50 down to 30 percent of the positional salary, due to this their remuneration decreased by 13.33 percent; after this measure had been applied, the difference between the remuneration of the state servants of the same positional category, who hold the first and the second qualification class, decreased from 15.38 down to 8.33 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of a state servant with the first qualification class is bigger than the remuneration of a state servant with the second qualification class), whilst the difference between the remuneration of the state servants of the same positional category, who hold the first qualification class and those with no qualification class, decreased from 50 down to 30 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of a state servant with the first qualification class is bigger than the remuneration of a state servant with no qualification class);

– as regards the state servants with the second qualification class, after the additional pay for this qualification class had been reduced from 30 down to 20 percent of the positional salary, due to this their remuneration decreased by 7.69 percent; after this measure had been applied, the difference between the remuneration of the state servants of the same positional category, who hold the second and the third qualification class, decreased from 13.04 down to 9.09 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of a state servant with the first qualification class is bigger than the remuneration of a state servant with the third qualification class), whilst the difference between the remuneration of the state servants of the same positional category, who hold the second qualification class and those with no qualification class, decreased from 30 down to 20 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of a state servant with the second qualification class is bigger than the remuneration of a state servant with no qualification class);

– as regards the state servants with the third qualification class, after the additional pay for this qualification class had been reduced from 15 down to 10 percent of the positional salary, due to this their remuneration decreased by 4.35 percent; after this measure had been applied, the difference between the remuneration of the state servants of the same positional category, who hold the third qualification class and those who hold no qualification class, decreased from 15 down to 10 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of a state servant with the third qualification class is bigger than the remuneration of a state servant with no qualification class);

– in the course of the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification class, the work remuneration of the state servants with higher positional categories (11–20) was reduced even to a larger extent than it had been done in the course of the application of only the first measure—the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary: from by 4.9 percent regarding the state servants of category 11 to whom the third qualification class was assigned, to by 29.73 percent regarding the state servants of category 20 to whom the first qualification class was assigned; thus, the different extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the state servants of positional categories 11–20, if assessed at the percentage amount, depended not only on the place of the positional categories in the system thereof, but also on the qualification held by the state servants: the higher the positional category and the qualification of the state servant, the larger extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the state servant.

  1. In the course of the summarising of the legal regulation impugned by the petitioners that is established in Annex 1 (its wording of 23 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) and Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service, according to which both of the additional measures (not including the reduction of the base amount)—the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary and the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification class—of the reduction of the work remuneration of state servants were applied, inter alia, it has been noted that:

– if assessed at the percentage amount (where no account is taken of the changes in the base amount), the application of the measures of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary and of the additional pay for the qualification class determined a very different extent in the reduction of the remuneration of state servants: due to these measures, the remuneration was not reduced as regards the state servants of lowest positional categories (categories 1–10) with the lowest qualification or with the least experience (with no qualification class), however, due to both of the above measures, the remuneration of the state servants of higher positional categories (categories 11–20) and/or with higher qualification or more experience (inter alia, the state servants of the positional categories 1–10 with a qualification class) was reduced up by 29.73 percent (for the state servants of category 20 to whom the first qualification class was assigned); as regards the state servants of categories 11–20 with a qualification class to whom both of the above additional measures of the reduction of the work remuneration were applied, their remuneration was reduced from by 4.9 percent (the state servants of category 11 to whom the third qualification class was assigned) to by 29.73 percent (the state servants of category 20 to whom the first qualification class was assigned);

– in the course of the application of both of the additional measures of the reduction of the work remuneration of state servants, the different extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the state servants of positional categories 11–20 depended on the place of respective categories in the system thereof and/or on the qualification held by the state servants: the higher the positional category and the qualification of the state servant, the larger extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the state servant.

  1. Thus, after the impugned legal regulation laid down in Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service had reduced the amounts of the additional pay of state servants for the qualification class, the disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of state servants was established; the remuneration of higher qualification state servants was reduced only on the grounds of a separate constituent part of the remuneration—the additional pay for the qualification class; alongside, the amount of the remuneration of state servants with high qualification, who performed complex work, was approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of persons with lower qualification, who performed less complicated work, and the proportions (i.e., the proportions that had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state) of the amounts of the remuneration of the persons attributed to the category of state servants, who held different positions, were violated. It should be noted that the impugned legal regulation governing only the reduction of the amount of the additional pay for the qualification class, a separate constituent part of the remuneration, is deficient in substance, since it distorts even to a greater extent the proportions (i.e., the proportions that had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state) of the amounts of the remuneration of state servants and approximates the amount of the remuneration of high qualification state servants performing difficult tasks even closer to the remuneration of lower qualification state servants performing less difficult tasks.
  2. It needs to be held that the impugned legal regulation disregarded the requirements, which stem from the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution (the provision being construed in conjunction with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights, and proportionality), for the legal regulation through which the remuneration of state servants is reduced due to the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state.
  3. In the light of the foregoing arguments, the conclusion should be drawn that Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service, insofar as it established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification class, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  4. It has been mentioned that, according to the legal regulation established in Article 2 and Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 17 July 2009), the reduced additional pay should have been in force only on a temporary basis, i.e. until 31 December 2010, whilst, on 1 January 2011, the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification classes that had been applied before should have come into force. The date of the entry into force (established in Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 17 July 2009)) of the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification classes that had been applied before was postponed three times through the first paragraphs of the first articles of the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) that amended Article 4 of the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service.

Having held that Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 25 of the Law on the State Service, insofar as it established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification class, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, on the grounds of the same arguments it should also be held that Paragraph 2 (wordings of 17 July 2009, 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of Article 4 of the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

XI

On the compliance of Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

  1. It has been mentioned that in the constitutional justice case at issue the petitioners impugn, inter alia, the compliance of Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service, insofar as it established the different extent of the reduction of the remuneration of state servants, with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  2. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it has been noted that, inter alia, the following requirements for the legal regulation, established by the legislature, governing the reduction, due to an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state, of the remuneration of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget stem from the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, the provision being construed in conjunction with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights, justice, and proportionality:

– in the course of the establishing of a certain extent of reduction of the remuneration, one should take into consideration the fact that the losses incurred by the society due to an especially difficult economic and financial situation must be distributed among its members, inter alia, among state servants, in a proportionate manner; the reduction of the remuneration must be proportionate, inter alia, the amount of the remuneration of a person with high qualification, who performs complex work, must not be approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of a person with lower qualification, who performs less complicated work; any such reduction of the remuneration of certain groups of state servants, where one takes into account not the entire work remuneration received, but only individual constituent parts of the work remuneration of the state servant, is not allowed;

– the requirement for establishing the proportionate and non-discriminatory reduction of the remuneration of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget implies, inter alia, the fact that the proportionate reduction of the remuneration must retain the proportions, which used to be established prior to the emergence of an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state, of the amounts of the remuneration of the persons of the same category (as, for instance, state servants) who hold different positions.

  1. It has been mentioned that the impugned legal regulation laid down in Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service reduced the amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category—a constituent part of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service:

– even though the said amounts were reduced to the same extent, if assessed at the percentage amount—33.33 percent (where no assessment is made as regards the change in the amount of the positional salary), in view of the fact that the additional pay for different qualification categories were reduced in a different amount expressed in the percentage of the positional salary, the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification category exerted different influence on the reduction of the overall remuneration of officials of the Special Investigation Service (where the possible additional pay and extra pay other than the additional pay for the qualification category are not taken into consideration, also where the changes in the positional salary are not assessed): as regards the officials of the Special Investigation Service with the first qualification category, after the additional pay for this qualification category had been reduced from 45 percent down to 30 percent of the positional salary, due to this their remuneration decreased by 10.34 percent; in the course of the application of this measure, the difference between the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service of the same positional category, but who had the first and the second qualification categories, decreased from 11.54 percent down to 8.33 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with the first qualification category is bigger than the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with the second qualification category), whilst the difference between the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service of the same positional category, but who had the first and no qualification categories, decreased from 45 percent down to 30 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with the first qualification category is bigger than the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with no qualification category); as regards the officials of the Special Investigation Service with the second qualification category, after the additional pay for this qualification category had been reduced from 30 percent down to 20 percent of the positional salary, due to this their remuneration decreased by 7.69 percent; in the course of the application of this measure, the difference between the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service of the same positional category, but who had the second and the third qualification categories, decreased from 13.04 percent down to 9.09 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with the second qualification category is bigger than the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with the third qualification category), whilst the difference between the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service of the same positional category, but who had the second and no qualification categories, decreased from 30 percent down to 20 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with the first qualification category is bigger than the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with no qualification category); as regards the officials of the Special Investigation Service with the third qualification category, after the additional pay for this qualification category had been reduced from 15 percent down to 10 percent of the positional salary, due to this their remuneration decreased by 4.35 percent; in the course of the application of this measure, the difference between the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service of the same positional category, but who had the third qualification category and no qualification category, decreased from 15 percent down to 10 percent (where an assessment is made of the amount in which the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with the third qualification category is bigger than the remuneration of an official of the Special Investigation Service with no qualification category);

– due to the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification category, the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service of 11–20 categories, as well as that of all state servants of the same categories, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced even to a larger extent than it had been done in the course of the application of the first measure—the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary: the different extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the officials of categories 11–20 depended not only on the place of the positional categories in the system thereof, but also on the qualification held by the officials: the higher the positional category and the qualification of the official, the larger extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the official;

– as regards the officials of the Special Investigation Service, their additional pay for the qualification category, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent than it was done with regard to other statutory state servants, i.e., the statutory servants of the State Security Department, the Department of Prisons, the Civil National Defence Service and the Second Investigation Department; such additional pay was not reduced at all for some statutory state servants (officials of the interior service and customs officials).

  1. Thus, after the impugned legal regulation laid down in Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service had reduced the amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category—a constituent part of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service, a disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service was established; the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service was reduced only on the grounds of a separate constituent part of the remuneration—the additional pay for the qualification category; alongside, the amount of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service with high qualification, who performed complex work, was approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of officials with lower qualification, who performed less complicated work, and the proportions (i.e., the proportions that had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state) of the amounts of the remuneration for the different positions of the officials of the Special Investigation Service and the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of the statutory state servants of the Special Investigation Service, as well as those of other statutory state servants, were violated. It should be noted that the impugned legal regulation governing only the reduction of the amount of the additional pay for the qualification category, a separate constituent part of the remuneration, is deficient in substance, since it distorts even to a greater extent the proportions (i.e., the proportions that had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state) of the amounts of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service and approximates the amount of the remuneration of high qualification officials performing difficult tasks even closer to the remuneration of lower qualification officials performing less difficult tasks.

It needs to be held that the impugned legal regulation disregarded the requirements, which stem from the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution (the provision being construed in conjunction with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights, and proportionality), for the legal regulation through which the remuneration of state servants is reduced due to the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state.

  1. In the light of the foregoing arguments, the conclusion should be drawn that Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service, insofar as it established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  2. It has been mentioned that, according to Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service (wording of 17 July 2009), the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category should have been in force only on a temporary basis, i.e. until 31 December 2010, whilst, on 1 January 2011, the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before should have come into force. The date of the entry into force (established in Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service (wording of 17 July 2009)) of the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before was postponed three times through the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) that amended Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service.

Having held that Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service, insofar as it established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, on the grounds of the same arguments, it should be held that Paragraph 2 (wordings of 17 July 2009, 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

  1. In the constitutional justice case at issue, in the course of the investigation into the compliance of Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service, which reduced the amounts of the additional pay of the officials of the Special Investigation Service for the qualification category, with the Constitution, it has been found that, according to the laws adopted due to an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state, the additional pay for the qualification category was also reduced for some other statutory state servants: the officials of the State Security Department, the Civil National Defence Service, the Second Investigation Department, and the Department of Prisons.

7.1. It should be noted that the Constitutional Court, having found that the provisions of a law, whose compliance with the Constitution is not impugned by the petitioner, but which interfere with the social relations regulated by the impugned law, are conflict with the Constitution, must state that those provisions are unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 29 November 2001, 14 January 2002, 19 June 2002, and 27 June 2007). The implementation of constitutional justice implies that the legal act (part thereof) that conflicts with the Constitution must be removed from the legal system (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 29 November 2001).

7.2. It has been mentioned that Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department established the following extent of the reduction of the additional pay of the officials of the State Security Department for the qualification category: the additional pay for the fourth qualification category—from 20 down to 15 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the third qualification category—from 30 percent down to 20 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the second qualification category—from 40 percent down to 25 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the first qualification category—from 50 percent down to 30 percent of the amount of the positional salary, whereas the additional pay for the fifth qualification category was not reduced—it remained as 10 percent of the amount of the positional salary.

It has also been noted that, according to this legal regulation, the additional pay of officials of the State Security Department for the qualification category, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent. It has also been noted that the additional pay for the qualification category, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent for different statutory servants; such additional pay was not reduced at all for some statutory state servants.

7.2.1. In the constitutional justice case at issue it has been held that, after the impugned legal regulation laid down in Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service had reduced the amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category—a constituent part of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service, a disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service was established; the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service was reduced only on the grounds of a separate constituent part of the remuneration—the additional pay for the qualification category; alongside, the amount of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service with high qualification, who performed complex work, was approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of officials with lower qualification, who performed less complicated work, and the proportions (i.e., the proportions that had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state) of the amounts of the remuneration for the different positions of the officials of the Special Investigation Service and the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of the statutory state servants of the Special Investigation Service, as well as those of other statutory state servants, were violated. In view of this fact, in the case at issue it has also been held that such legal regulation disregarded the requirements, which stem from the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution (the provision being construed in conjunction with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights, and proportionality), for the legal regulation through which the remuneration of state servants is reduced due to the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state.

It should be noted that the legal regulation established in Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department should be assessed in the same manner, since it also established a disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the officials of the State Security Department; the remuneration of the officials of the State Security Department was reduced only on the grounds of a separate constituent part of the remuneration—the additional pay for the qualification category; alongside, the amount of the remuneration of the officials of the State Security Department with high qualification, who performed complex work, was approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of officials with lower qualification, who performed less complicated work, and the proportions (i.e., the proportions that had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state) of the amounts of the remuneration for the different positions of the officials of the State Security Department and the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of the statutory state servants of the State Security Department, as well as of other statutory state servants, were violated.

It has been mentioned that, inter alia, the Law Amending Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department became no longer valid after the Law Amending the Law on Intelligence (wording of 17 October 2012) had come into force on 1 January 2013.

On the grounds of the same arguments, the conclusion should be drawn that Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department, insofar as it established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

7.2.2. It has also been mentioned that, according to Article 2 and Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department (wording of 17 July 2009), the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category should have been in force only on a temporary basis, i.e. until 31 December 2010, whilst, on 1 January 2011, the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before should have come into force. The date of the entry into force (established in Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department (wording of 17 July 2009)) of the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before was postponed twice through the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010 and 22 November 2011) that amended Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department. The Law Amending Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department and the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010 and 22 November 2011) that amended Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department became no longer valid after the Law Amending the Law on Intelligence (wording of 17 October 2012) had come into force on 1 January 2013.

Having held that Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department, insofar as it established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, on the grounds of the same arguments it should be held that Paragraph 2 (wordings of 17 July 2009, 30 June 2010, and 22 November 2011) of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

7.3. It has been mentioned that Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service (wording of 1 July 2003) established the following extent of the reduction of the additional pay of the statutory servants performing civil national defence service for the qualification category: the additional pay for the first qualification category—from 15 down to 10 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the second qualification category—from 25 percent down to 15 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the third qualification category—from 35 percent down to 20 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the fourth qualification category—from 45 percent down to 25 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the fifth qualification category—from 55 percent down to 30 percent of the amount of the positional salary.

It has also been mentioned that, according to this legal regulation, the additional pay for the qualification category of statutory servants performing civil national defence service, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent. It has also been noted that the additional pay for the qualification category, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent for different statutory servants; such additional pay was not reduced at all for some statutory state servants.

7.3.1. In the constitutional justice case at issue it has been held that, after the impugned legal regulation laid down in Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service had reduced the amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category—a constituent part of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service, a disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service was established; the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service was reduced only on the grounds of a separate constituent part of the remuneration—the additional pay for the qualification category; alongside, the amount of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service with high qualification, who performed complex work, was approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of officials with lower qualification, who performed less complicated work, and the proportions (i.e., the proportions that had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state) of the amounts of the remuneration for the different positions of the officials of the Special Investigation Service and the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of the statutory state servants of the Special Investigation Service, as well as those of other statutory state servants, were violated. In view of this fact, in the case at issue it has also been held that such legal regulation disregarded the requirements, which stem from the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution (the provision being construed in conjunction with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights, and proportionality), for the legal regulation through which the remuneration of state servants is reduced due to the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state.

It should be noted that the legal regulation laid down in Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service (wording of 1 July 2003) should be assessed in the same manner, since it also established a disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the statutory servants performing civil national defence service; the remuneration of the statutory servants performing civil national defence service was reduced only on the grounds of a separate constituent part of the remuneration—the additional pay for the qualification category; alongside, the amount of the remuneration of the statutory servants with high qualification performing civil national defence service, who performed complex work, was approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of officials with lower qualification, who performed less complicated work, and the proportions (i.e., the proportions that had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state) of the amounts of the remuneration for the different positions of the statutory servants performing civil national defence service and the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of the statutory servants performing civil national defence service, as well as those of other statutory state servants, were violated.

On the grounds of the same arguments, the conclusion should be drawn that Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service (wording of 1 July 2003), insofar as it established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

7.3.2. It has been mentioned that, according to Article 2 and Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service (wording of 17 July 2009), the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category should have been in force only on a temporary basis, i.e. until 31 December 2010, whilst, on 1 January 2011, the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before should have come into force. The date of the entry into force (established in Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service (wording of 17 July 2009)) of the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before was postponed three times through the laws (wordings of 20 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) that amended Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service.

Having held that Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service (wording of 1 July 2003), insofar as it established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it should also be held that Paragraph 2 (wordings of 17 July 2009, 20 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

7.4. It has been mentioned that Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence established the following extent of the reduction of the additional pay of the statutory servants of the Second Investigation Department for the qualification category: the additional pay for the first qualification category—from 35 percent down to 25 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the second qualification category—from 40 percent down to 28 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the third qualification category—from 45 percent down to 30 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the fourth qualification category—from 50 percent down to 35 percent of the amount of the positional salary, the additional pay for the fifth qualification category—from 55 percent down to 38 percent of the amount of the positional salary.

It has also been noted that, according to this legal regulation, the additional pay for the qualification category of statutory servants of the Second Investigation Department, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent. It has also been noted that the additional pay for the qualification category, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent for different statutory servants; such additional pay was not reduced at all for some statutory state servants.

7.4.1. In the constitutional justice case at issue it has been held that, after the impugned legal regulation laid down in Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service had reduced the amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category—a constituent part of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service, a disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service was established; the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service was reduced only on the grounds of a separate constituent part of the remuneration—the additional pay for the qualification category; alongside, the amount of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service with high qualification, who performed complex work, was approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of officials with lower qualification, who performed less complicated work, and the proportions (i.e., the proportions that had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state) of the amounts of the remuneration for the different positions of the officials of the Special Investigation Service and the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of the statutory state servants of the Special Investigation Service, as well as those of other statutory state servants, were violated. In view of this fact, in the case at issue it has also been held that such legal regulation disregarded the requirements, which stem from the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution (the provision being construed in conjunction with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights, and proportionality), for the legal regulation through which the remuneration of state servants is reduced due to the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state.

It should be noted that the legal regulation laid down in Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence should be assessed in the same manner, since it also established a disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the statutory servants of the Second Investigation Department; the remuneration of the statutory servants of the Second Investigation Department was reduced only on the grounds of a separate constituent part of the remuneration—the additional pay for the qualification category; alongside, the amount of the remuneration of the statutory servants of the Second Investigation Department with high qualification, who performed complex work, was approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of officials with lower qualification, who performed less complicated work, and the proportions (i.e., the proportions that had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state) of the amounts of the remuneration for the different positions of the statutory servants of the Second Investigation Department and the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of the statutory servants of the Second Investigation Department, as well as those of other statutory state servants, were violated.

It has been mentioned that, inter alia, the Law Amending Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence became no longer valid after the Law Amending the Law on Intelligence (wording of 17 October 2012) had come into force on 1 January 2013.

On the grounds of the same arguments the conclusion should be drawn that Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence, insofar as it had established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

7.4.2. It has been mentioned that, according to Article 2 and Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence (wording of 17 July 2009), the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category should have been in force only on a temporary basis, i.e. until 31 December 2010, whilst, on 1 January 2011, the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before should have come into force. The date of the entry into force (established in Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence (wording of 17 July 2009)) of the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before was postponed twice through the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010 and 22 November 2011) that amended Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence. The Law Amending Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence and the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010 and 22 November 2011) that amended Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence became no longer valid after the Law Amending the Law on Intelligence (wording of 17 October 2012) had come into force on 1 January 2013.

Having held that Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence, insofar as it had established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, on the grounds of the same arguments it should also be held that Paragraph 2 (wordings of 17 July 2009, 30 June 2010, and 22 November 2011) of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

7.5. It has been mentioned that Paragraph 6 of Article 42 (wording of 29 April 2003) of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 18 April 2000) established the additional pay for the qualification category paid to the officials of the Department of Prisons. On 17 July 2009, the Seimas adopted the Law Amending Article 42 of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania through which it amended Paragraph 6 of Article 42 of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania. From the legal regulation established in Paragraph 6 (wording of 17 July 2009) of Article 46 of this statute, it is clear that it established the following extent of the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification category of the officials of the Department of Prisons: the additional pay for the third qualification category was reduced from 15 percent down to 10 percent of the positional salary, the additional pay for the second qualification category was reduced from 30 percent down to 20 percent of the positional salary, whilst the additional pay for the first qualification category was reduced from 50 percent down to 30 percent of the positional salary.

It has also been noted that, according to this legal regulation, the additional pay of officials of the Department of Prisons for the qualification category, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent. It has also been noted that the additional pay for the qualification category, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent for different statutory servants; such additional pay was not reduced at all for some statutory state servants.

In the constitutional justice case at issue it has been held that, after the impugned legal regulation laid down in Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service had reduced the amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category—a constituent part of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service, a disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service was established; the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service was reduced only on the grounds of a separate constituent part of the remuneration—the additional pay for the qualification category; alongside, the amount of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service with high qualification, who performed complex work, was approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of officials with lower qualification, who performed less complicated work, and the proportions (i.e., the proportions that had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state) of the amounts of the remuneration for the different positions of the officials of the Special Investigation Service and the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of the statutory state servants of the Special Investigation Service, as well as those of other statutory state servants, were violated. In view of this fact, in the case at issue it has also been held that such legal regulation disregarded the requirements, which stem from the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution (the provision being construed in conjunction with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights, and proportionality), for the legal regulation through which the remuneration of state servants is reduced due to the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state.

It should be noted that the legal regulation laid down in Paragraph 6 (wording of 29 April 2003) of Article 42 of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 18 April 2000) should be assessed in the same manner, since it also established a disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the officials of the Department of Prisons; the remuneration of the officials of the Department of Prisons was reduced only on the grounds of a separate constituent part of the remuneration—the additional pay for the qualification category; alongside, the amount of the remuneration of the officials of the Department of Prisons with high qualification, who performed complex work, was approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of officials with lower qualification, who performed less complicated work, and the proportions (i.e., the proportions that had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state) of the amounts of the remuneration for the different positions of the officials of the Department of Prisons and the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of the statutory state servants of the Department of Prisons, as well as those of other statutory state servants, were violated.

On the grounds of the same arguments, the conclusion should be drawn that Paragraph 6 (wording of 29 April 2003) of Article 42 of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 18 April 2000), insofar as it had established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

7.6. It has been mentioned that Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 January 2010) of Article 41 of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 6 November 2008) established the following extent of the reduction of the additional pay for the qualification category of the officials of the Department of Prisons: the additional pay for the third qualification category was reduced from 15 percent down to 10 percent of the positional salary, the additional pay for the second qualification category was reduced from 30 percent down to 20 percent of the positional salary, whilst the additional pay for the first qualification category was reduced from 50 percent down to 30 percent of the positional salary.

It has also been noted that, according to this legal regulation, the additional pay of officials of the Department of Prisons for the qualification category, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent. It has also been noted that the additional pay for the qualification category, if assessed at the percentage amount, was reduced to a different extent for different statutory servants; such additional pay was not reduced at all for some statutory state servants.

7.6.1. In the constitutional justice case at issue it has been held that, after the impugned legal regulation laid down in Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service had reduced the amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category—a constituent part of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service, a disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service was established; the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service was reduced only on the grounds of a separate constituent part of the remuneration—the additional pay for the qualification category; alongside, the amount of the remuneration of the officials of the Special Investigation Service with high qualification, who performed complex work, was approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of officials with lower qualification, who performed less complicated work, and the proportions (i.e., the proportions that had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state) of the amounts of the remuneration for the different positions of the officials of the Special Investigation Service and the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of the statutory state servants of the Special Investigation Service, as well as those of other statutory state servants, were violated. In view of this fact, in the case at issue it has also been held that such legal regulation disregarded the requirements, which stem from the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution (the provision being construed in conjunction with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights, proportionality, and social solidarity), for the legal regulation through which the remuneration of state servants is reduced due to the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state.

It should be noted that Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 January 2010) of Article 41 of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 6 November 2008) should be assessed in the same manner, since it also established a disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the officials of the Department of Prisons; the remuneration of the officials of the Department of Prisons was reduced only on the grounds of a separate constituent part of the remuneration—the additional pay for the qualification category; alongside, the amount of the remuneration of the officials of the Department of Prisons with high qualification, who performed complex work, was approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of officials with lower qualification, who performed less complicated work, and the proportions (i.e., the proportions that had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state) of the amounts of the remuneration for the different positions of the officials of the Department of Prisons and the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of the statutory state servants of the Department of Prisons, as well as those of other statutory state servants, were violated.

On the grounds of the same arguments, the conclusion should be drawn that Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 January 2010) of Article 41 of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 6 November 2008), insofar as it established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

7.6.2. It has been mentioned that, according to Articles 2 and 3 of the Law Amending Article 1 of the Law Amending the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 17 July 2009), the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category should have been in force only on a temporary basis, i.e. until 31 December 2010, whilst, on 1 January 2011, the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before should have come into force. The date of the entry into force (established in Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 1 of the Law Amending the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 17 July 2009)) of the bigger amounts of the additional pay for qualification categories that had been applied before was postponed three times through the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) that amended Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 1 of the Law Amending the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania.

Having held that Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 January 2010) of Article 41 of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 6 November 2008), insofar as it established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, on the grounds of the same arguments it should also be held that Article 3 (wordings of 17 July 2009, 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of the Law Amending Article 1 of the Law Amending the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

XII

On the compliance of the Appendix (its wording of 28 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges with Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009) and that of Article 2 (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009) with Paragraph 2 of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, Paragraph 2 of Article 109 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

  1. It has been mentioned that in the constitutional justice case at issue the petitioners impugn, inter alia, the compliance of the Appendix (wording of 28 April 2009) to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, insofar as it established coefficient 12.5 of the positional salary of judges of local courts, coefficient 15.14 of the positional salary of judges of regional administrative courts, and coefficient 16.46 of the positional salary of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania and that of the Appendix (wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, insofar as it established coefficient 11.56 of the positional salary of judges of local courts, coefficient 14 of the positional salary of judges of regional administrative courts, and coefficient 15.23 of the positional salary of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania with Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009) and that of Article 2 (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009) with Paragraph 2 of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, Paragraph 2 of Article 109 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

It has also been mentioned that, in order to assess the reasonableness of the petitioners’ doubts about the compliance of the impugned legal regulation with the Constitution, it is necessary to take into consideration the overall legal regulation governing the reduction of judges’ remuneration as established through the Appendix (its wording of 28 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges.

  1. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it has been noted that, inter alia, the following requirements for the legal regulation, established by the legislature, governing the reduction, due to an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state, of the remuneration of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget stem from the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, the provision being construed in conjunction with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights, justice, and proportionality:

– in the course of the establishing of a certain extent of reduction of the remuneration, one should take into consideration the fact that the losses incurred by the society due to an especially difficult economic and financial situation must be distributed among its members, inter alia, among judges, in a proportionate manner; the reduction of the remuneration must be proportionate, inter alia, the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of different categories of persons who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget that used to be established prior to the emergence of an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state must be retained; the amount of the remuneration of a person with high qualification, who performs complex work, must not be approximated or even equalised to the remuneration of a person with lower qualification, who performs less complicated work;

– the requirement for establishing the proportionate and non-discriminatory reduction of the remuneration of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget implies, inter alia, the fact that the proportionate reduction of the remuneration must retain the proportions, which used to be established prior to the emergence of an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state, of the amounts of the remuneration of the persons of the same category (as, for instance, judges) who hold different positions.

It has also been mentioned that the reduction of the remuneration of judges must not be disproportionate; inter alia, the proportions of the amounts of salaries established at the time prior to the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state for the judges performing different duties (for the judges of different systems of courts and/or of different levels of courts), as well as the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration established for the different categories of judges and other persons (inter alia, state servants, politicians, and officials) who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget, must be retained; any failure to observe the said requirements should be regarded as an encroachment upon the independence of judges and courts, thus, inter alia, also as a violation of Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

  1. It has been mentioned that the impugned legal regulation established in the Appendix (its wording of 28 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges made the following impact on the reduction of the remuneration of judges (where the changes in the base amount are not assessed):

– if assessed at the percentage amount, the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) for the positions of judges were reduced to a different extent: from by 17.69 percent (as regards a judge of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, the chairperson of a division of a regional court, the deputy president of a regional administrative court) to by 35.06 percent (as regards a justice of the Constitutional Court);

– if assessed at the percentage amount, the coefficients of the positional salaries for positions of judges were reduced to a larger extent than the coefficients of the positional salaries of most of the state servants of positional categories 11–20; if assessed at the percentage amount, the coefficients of the remuneration of the President of the Constitutional Court and a justice of this court were reduced to a much larger extent than the coefficients of the positional salaries of state servants;

– the coefficient of the remuneration of the President of the Constitutional Court was reduced by 34.98 percent and that of a justice of the Constitutional Court—by 35.06 percent, thus, if assessed at the percentage amount, these coefficients were reduced clearly to a larger extent than the coefficients of the positional salaries for the positions of other judges; the coefficients of the remuneration of the President of the Constitutional Court and of justices of this court that were reduced to this extent were essentially approximated to the coefficient of the positional salary of the President of the Supreme Court of Lithuania; such legal regulation, in view of the fact that no additional pay for the years served for the State of Lithuania is provided for the President of the Constitutional Court and justices of this court, creates preconditions for the substantial approximating of the remuneration of the President of the Constitutional Court and justices of this court to the remuneration of some judges of courts of general jurisdiction and of specialised courts, who are at present paid the maximum possible additional pay or substantial additional pay for the years served for the State of Lithuania; in addition, the said legal regulation creates preconditions for the equalising of the remuneration of the President of the Constitutional Court and justices of this court with, or even making it smaller than the remuneration of the said judges of courts of general jurisdiction and of specialised courts.

  1. It has also been mentioned that, when the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of judges is compared with the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of state politicians, state officials, and prosecutors, the following should be noted:

– if assessed at the percentage amount, the extent of the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) for all positions of judges is much larger than that of one group of state politicians—municipal mayors and deputy mayors—and much larger than that of some state officials and the prosecutors other than those of the Office of the Prosecutor General;

– if assessed at the percentage amount, the coefficients of the remuneration of the President of the Constitutional Court and a justice of this court were reduced to a much larger extent than the coefficients of the positional salaries of all state politicians, officials, and prosecutors;

– when the legal regulation that reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of judges was in force, by means of the singling out of certain groups of state officials and prosecutors, where the coefficients of the positional salaries of such groups of officials and prosecutors was actually increased in comparison to the coefficients that had existed prior to the reduction, one contributed to the distortion of the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of judges and state officials as well as prosecutors that had existed prior to the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration).

  1. Thus, the legal regulation laid down in the Appendix (its wording of 28 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on Remuneration of Judges, through which the coefficients of the positional salary (remuneration) of judges had been reduced, prescribed a disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of judges, it, inter alia, violated the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of different positions of judges (justices of the Constitutional Court, judges of courts of general jurisdiction or specialised courts) established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly grave economic and financial situation in the state, as well as the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration of judges and those of categories of other persons (state servants, state politicians and officials, prosecutors) who are paid for work with the funds of the state or municipal budgets.

It needs to be held that the impugned legal regulation disregarded the requirements, which stem from the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution (the provision being construed in conjunction with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights, and proportionality), for the legal regulation through which the remuneration of judges is reduced due to the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state; any failure to observe the said requirements should be regarded as an encroachment upon the independence of judges and courts, thus, inter alia, also as a violation of Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

  1. In the light of the foregoing arguments, the conclusion should be drawn that the Appendix (its wording of 28 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on Remuneration of Judges, through which the coefficients of the positional salary (remuneration) of judges had been reduced, insofar as such legal regulation (had) reduced the remuneration of judges in a disproportionate manner, is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, Paragraph 2 of Article 109 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

Having held the aforesaid, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate into whether the Appendix (its wording of 28 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on Remuneration of Judges is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution.

  1. It has been mentioned that Article 2 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009) used to establish that this law had to come into force on 1 August 2009 and that it had to be valid until 31 December 2010. It should be noted that the validity of the reduced coefficients of the positional salary (remuneration) of judges established in Article 2 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009) was prolonged three times through the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) that amended Article 2 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009). The legal regulation establishing the reduced coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) of judges is valid at present as well.

It has also been mentioned that Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009) provided (and provides) to apply the coefficients of the positional salary (remuneration) that had been in force prior to 30 April 2009, however, the laws (wordings of 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) that amended Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges postponed that three times.

Having held that the Appendix (its wording of 28 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009 and its wording of 17 July 2009) to the Law on Remuneration of Judges, through which the coefficients of the positional salary (remuneration) of judges had been reduced, insofar as such legal regulation (had) reduced the remuneration of judges in a disproportionate manner, is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, Paragraph 2 of Article 109 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, on the grounds of the same arguments, it should be held that Article 2 (wordings of 17 July 2009, 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009) and Paragraph 2 (wordings of 28 April 2009, 30 June 2010, 22 November 2011, and 20 December 2012) of Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009) are (were) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, Paragraph 2 of Article 109 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

XIII

  1. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 107 of the Constitution, a law (or part thereof) of the Republic of Lithuania or other act (or part thereof) of the Seimas, act of the President of the Republic, act (or part thereof) of the Government may not be applied from the day of the official publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court that the act in question (or part thereof) is in conflict with the Constitution.

The annexes, appendixes, articles (parts thereof) governing the reduction of the remuneration of state servants and judges that have been recognised as being in conflict with the Constitution by this Constitutional Court’s ruling must not be applied from the day of its official publication.

  1. After this Constitutional Court’s ruling has recognised that:

– Paragraph 2 (wording of 20 December 2012) of Article 3 of the Law Amending Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service and Paragraph 3 (wording of 20 December 2012) of Article 4 of the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service are in conflict with the Constitution, Article 2 of the Law Amending Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 23 April 2009) that had established the non-reduced coefficients of state servants’ positional salaries that used to be in force prior to 30 April 2009 will come into force from the day of the official publication of this Constitutional Court’s ruling unless the legislature establishes any other related legal regulation by then;

– Paragraph 2 (wording of 20 December 2012) of Article 4 of the Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service (wording of 17 July 2009) is in conflict with the Constitution, Article 2 of this law that had established the non-reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification class that used to be in force prior to 31 July 2009 will come into force from the day of the official publication of this Constitutional Court’s ruling unless the legislature establishes any other related legal regulation by then;

– Paragraph 2 (wording of 20 December 2012) of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service (wording of 17 July 2009) is in conflict with the Constitution, Article 2 of this law that had established the non-reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category that used to be in force prior to 31 July 2009 will come into force from the day of the official publication of this Constitutional Court’s ruling unless the legislature establishes any other related legal regulation by then;

– Paragraph 2 (wording of 20 December 2012) of Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service (wording of 17 July 2009) is in conflict with the Constitution, Article 2 of this law that had established the non-reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category that used to be in force prior to 31 July 2009 will come into force from the day of the official publication of this Constitutional Court’s ruling unless the legislature establishes any other related legal regulation by then;

– Article 3 (wording of 20 December 2012) of the Law Amending Article 1 of the Law Amending the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania is in conflict with the Constitution, Article 2 of this law that had established the non-reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category that used to be in force prior to 31 July 2009 will come into force from the day of the official publication of this Constitutional Court’s ruling unless the legislature establishes any other related legal regulation by then;

– Paragraph 2 (wording of 20 December 2012) of Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009) and Article 2 (wording of 20 December 2012) of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009) are in conflict with the Constitution, Article 2 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009) that had established the non-reduced coefficients of judges’ positional salaries (remuneration) that used to be in force prior to 30 April 2009 will come into force from the day of the official publication of this Constitutional Court’s ruling unless the legislature establishes any other related legal regulation by then.

  1. As it has been held by the Constitutional Court, under the Constitution, the Constitutional Court, having inter alia assessed what legal situation might arise after a ruling of the Constitutional Court becomes effective, may establish a date of the official publication of that ruling. The postponement of the official publication of the Constitutional Court’s ruling (inter alia, a ruling by which a certain law (or part thereof) is recognised as conflicting with the Constitution) is a precondition stemming from the Constitution in order to avoid certain effects, unfavourable to the society and the state as well as the human rights and freedoms, which might appear if the relevant ruling of the Constitutional Court were officially published immediately after its public pronouncement at the hearing of the Constitutional Court and if it became effective on the same day after it had been officially published (inter alia, the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 23 August 2005, 29 June 2010, 9 June 2011, and 6 February 2012).

Thus, the Constitutional Court has the constitutional powers to establish a later date of the official publication (thus, also that of the entry into force) of its ruling that recognised a certain legal act (part thereof) as conflicting with legal acts of higher power, inter alia (and, first of all), with the Constitution, in cases where, in order to implement that ruling, it is necessary to respectively redistribute the financial resources of the state and to adopt related amendments to laws.

  1. A certain period of time is necessary for the legislature so that this Constitutional Court’s ruling would be implemented, i.e. so that the state financial resources would respectively be redistributed and the legal regulation governing the state budget allocations for the work remuneration of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds of the state budget or municipal budget would be amended, and/or the amendments to laws would be made with the purpose of the establishing of the extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds of the state budget or municipal budget that would not distort the remuneration’s amounts’ proportions that had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state.

This Constitutional Court’s ruling is related to the protection of the human right to fair pay for work which is a precondition for the implementation of a great many other constitutional rights, inter alia, it is one of the most important preconditions for the implementation of the constitutional right of ownership. Therefore, the period of time within which the legislature must adopt the required amendments to laws should not be long.

In view of this fact, this Constitutional Court’s ruling must be published officially in the Official Gazette Valstybės žinios on 1 October 2013.

XIV

  1. It should be noted that at the time when the legislature was adopting the laws on the disproportionate reduction of the remuneration of state servants and judges that have been recognised as conflicting with the Constitution by this Constitutional Court’s ruling, it must have been aware of the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine upon which this ruling is grounded.

It has been mentioned that, as far back as in its ruling of 28 March 2006, the Constitutional Court held that the legislature may change the legal regulation governing the salaries to various persons and may consolidate the legal regulation on the salaries that would be less favourable to these persons if it is necessary in order to ensure the vital interests of society and the state and to protect other constitutional values; however, also in such cases the legislature must keep the balance between the rights and legitimate interests of the persons for whom the less favourable legal regulation is established and the interests of society and the state, i.e. the legislature must pay heed to the requirements of the principle of proportionality.

As mentioned before, in its ruling of 11 December 2009 and in its decision of 20 April 2010, the Constitutional Court noted that the constitutional principle of proportionality means, inter alia, that when there is a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state and when, due to this there is a necessity for a temporary reduction of the remuneration of state servants in order to secure vitally important interests of society and the state and for the protection of other constitutional values, the legislature is under an obligation to establish a uniform and non-discriminatory scale of the reduction of the remuneration of state servants, according to which, with respect to all categories of state servants (and other employees financed with the funds of the state or municipal budget), the remuneration would be reduced by not violating the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration established with regard to different categories of state servants prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state; the Constitution does not tolerate any such situations where the remuneration of state servants, when there is a difficult economic and financial situation in the state, is reduced in a disproportionate manner, inter alia, by approximating the amount of the remuneration of a state servant of high qualification, who performs a complex job, to the remuneration of a state servant of lower qualification, who performs a less complex job, or where the former remuneration is equalised with the latter, or where the remuneration of state servants of certain groups is reduced by taking into consideration not the entire work remuneration received, but only individual constituent parts of the work remuneration of state servants, etc.; in such situations not only the constitutional principles of proportionality, the equality of rights and justice are denied, but one also deviates from the constitutional concept of the state service as well as from the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution consolidating the human right to receive fair pay for work.

In its decision of 20 April 2010, while construing the doctrinal provision that the reduction of the work remuneration must be temporary, the Constitutional Court held that this provision may not be interpreted as meaning that the state, after the legislature has reduced the remuneration of officials of the institutions that are financed with the funds of state budget or municipal budget (and of other employees who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget) as well as that of state servants, is released from the duty to look for ways of the securing of the accumulation of the funds necessary in order to pay the remuneration in the amounts that had been prior to their reduction; quite to the contrary, if, before the end of the economic crisis, there arises an opportunity to accumulate (receive) the funds necessary to pay the remuneration in the amounts that had been before the reduction of the remuneration, the legal regulation governing the reduction of the work remuneration of officials of the institutions that are financed with the funds of the state budget or the municipal budget (and of other employees who are paid for their work with the funds from the state or municipal budget) as well as that of state servants must be repealed.

The legislature must also have been aware of the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine that the remuneration of judges is allowed only on a temporary basis—as long as there is an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state; such reduction of the remuneration must not give rise to any preconditions for the violation of the independence of courts by any other state institutions and their officials.

The validity of the laws that were adopted in 2009 and reduced the remuneration of state servants and judges and that are a matter for investigation in the constitutional justice case at issue was prolonged three times without any substantial changes in their contents, however, by means of the amendments to other laws, by distorting even more the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration established with regard to different categories of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds of the state budget or municipal budget prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state.

In view of this fact it needs to be held that the legislature, when prolonging the validity of the provisions of those laws, has disregarded the aforesaid provisions of the official constitutional doctrine, nor has it taken any measures for restoring the proportions of the amounts of the remuneration that were clearly violated in the course of their reduction.

  1. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it should be noted that, after the Constitutional Court has recognised the legal regulation that laid down the disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds of the state budget or municipal budget as conflicting with the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, the legislature must, pursuant to the requirement stemming from Article 23 of the Constitution, establish a mechanism of the compensation for the losses incurred by those persons; it means, among other things, that a procedure must be established on the grounds of which the state, within a reasonable time, in a fair manner and to the extent that the incurred losses were disproportionate, will compensate for such losses.

Thus, it needs to be held that after this Constitutional Court’s ruling has recognised the legal provisions that laid down the disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the persons who are paid for their work with the funds of the state budget or municipal budget as conflicting, inter alia, with the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, the requirement for establishing a mechanism of the compensation for the losses incurred by the persons who are paid for their work with the funds of the state budget or municipal budget stems from Article 23 of the Constitution; such a mechanism means the procedure, according to which the state, within a reasonable time (inter alia, in view of the economic and financial situation of the state and after an assessment of the accumulation (receiving) of the funds required for such compensation) and in a fair manner, will compensate for such losses. Such legal regulation should be established without any unreasonable delay in order to avoid numerous applications to courts lodged by the persons who are paid for their work with the funds of the state budget or municipal budget requesting that the courts award them the remuneration’s unpaid part that came into being after the legal provisions, which have been recognised by this Constitutional Court’s ruling as conflicting with the Constitution, had reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries (remuneration) or the amounts of the additional pay for the qualification class or for qualification category.

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

ruling:

  1. To recognise 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 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3915), insofar as it established the base amount of LTL 450 of the positional salary (remuneration) of state politicians, judges, state officials, and state servants that was applicable for the period from 1 August 2009 until 31 December 2009, was not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
  2. To recognise that Annex 1 (its wording of 23 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 49-1937) to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service, which had established the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary of the state servants of the positions of categories 15–20, insofar as such legal regulation had reduced the remuneration of state servants in a disproportionate manner, was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  3. To recognise that Paragraph 2 (wording of 23 April 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 49-1937; wording of 30 June 2010, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2010, No. 82-4297; wording of 22 November 2011, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 150-7038; and wording of 20 December 2012, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2012, No. 155-7993) of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  4. To recognise that Annex 1 (wording of 17 July 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3918) to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service, which has established the reduction of the coefficients of the positional salary of the state servants of the positions of categories 11–20, insofar as such legal regulation has reduced the remuneration of state servants in a disproportionate manner, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  5. To recognise that Paragraph 3 (wording of 17 July 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3918; wording of 30 June 2010, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2010, No. 82-4298; wording of 22 November 2011, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 150-7036; wording of 20 December 2012, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2012, No. 155-7992) of Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  6. To recognise that Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3918) of Article 25 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service, insofar as it established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification class, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  7. To recognise that Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 July 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3918; wording of 30 June 2010, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2010, No. 82-4298; wording of 22 November 2011, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 150-7036; wording of 20 December 2012, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2012, No. 155-7992) of Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 25 and Annex 1 to the Law on the State Service is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  8. To recognise that Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3919) of Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service of the Republic of Lithuania, insofar as it established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  9. To recognise that Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 July 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3919; wording of 30 June 2010, Valstybės žinios, 2010, No. 82-4303; wording of 22 November 2011, Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 150-7034; wording of 20 December 2012, Valstybės žinios, 2012, No. 155-7997) of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Instigation Service is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  10. To recognise that Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3920) of Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department of the Republic of Lithuania, insofar as it established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  11. To recognise that Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 July 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3920; wording of 30 June 2010, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2010, No. 82-4304; wording of 22 November 2011, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 150-7035) of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 43 of the Statute of the State Security Department was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law
  12. To recognise that Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force 1 August 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3921) of Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service of the Republic of Lithuania, insofar as it established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  13. To recognise that Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 July 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3921; wording of 30 June 2010, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2010, No. 82-4300; wording of 22 November 2011, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 150-7032; wording of 20 December 2012, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2012, No. 155-7998) of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  14. To recognise that Paragraph 3 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 August 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3922) of Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence of the Republic of Lithuania, insofar as it had established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  15. To recognise that Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 July 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3922; wording of 30 June 2010, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2010, No. 82-4299; wording of 22 November 2011, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 150-7033) of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 32 of the Statute of the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry of National Defence was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  16. To recognise that Paragraph 6 (wording of 29 April 2003, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3923) of Article 42 of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 18 April 2000), insofar as it had established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  17. To recognise that Paragraph 4 (its wording of 17 July 2009 that came into force on 1 January 2010, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3924) of Article 41 of the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 6 November 2008), insofar as it established the reduced amounts of the additional pay for the qualification category, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  18. To recognise that Article 3 (wording of 2009 July 17, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3924; wording of 2010 June 30, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2010, No. 82-4301; wording of 2011 November 22, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 150-7040; wording of 2012 December 20, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2012, No. 155-7995) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 1 of the Law Amending the Statute of the Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  19. To recognise that the Appendix (its wording of 28 April 2009 that came into force on 1 May 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 49-1940; wording of 17 July 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3917) to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Remuneration of Judges, through which the coefficients of the positional salary (remuneration) of judges had been reduced, insofar as such legal regulation (had) reduced the remuneration of judges in a disproportionate manner, is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, Paragraph 2 of Article 109 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  20. To recognise that Paragraph 2 (wording of 28 April 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 49-1940; wording of 30 June 2010, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2010, No. 82-4306; wording of 22 November 2011, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 150-7044; wording of 20 December 2012, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2012, No. 155-7991) of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 28 April 2009) is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, Paragraph 2 of Article 109 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  21. To recognise that Article 2 (wording of 17 July 2009, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 91-3917; wording of 30 June 2010, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2010, No. 82-4307; wording of 22 November 2011, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 150-7043; wording of 20 December 2012, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2012, No. 155-7990) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges (wording of 17 July 2009) is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, Paragraph 2 of Article 109 thereof, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
  22. This ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania must officially be published in the Official Gazette Valstybės žinios on 1 October 2013.

 

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

Justices of the Constitutional Court:                         Egidijus Bieliūnas

                                                                                             Toma Birmontienė

                                                                                             Pranas Kuconis

                                                                                             Gediminas Mesonis

                                                                                             Ramutė Ruškytė

                                                                                             Egidijus Šileikis

                                                                                             Algirdas Taminskas

                                                                                             Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis

                                                                                             Dainius Žalimas