The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania s1

109

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,

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

The Constitutional Court

has established:

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.