Case No.10/95 Case No.10/95 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA R U L I N G On the compliance of the 30 August 1995 Resolution No.1164 of the Government of Lithuania “On the capitali

Article 13

of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Budgeting, Article 9 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture, and Part 1, Article 43 of Company Law of the Republic of Lithuania 28 February 1996, Vilnius The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Algirdas Gailiûnas, Kæstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Vladas Pavilonis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavièius, Stasys Staèiokas, Teodora Staugaitienë, Stasys Ðedbaras and Juozas Þilys, the secretary of the hearing - Daiva Pitrënaitë, the petitioner - the Seimas members Andrius Kubilius and Vidmantas Þiemelis, representatives of a group of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania members, the party concerned - Jonas Panamariovas and Vytautas Poliûnas, secretaries of the Ministry of Agriculture, and Irena Paulauskienë, the Head of the Staff Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, representatives of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Part 1, Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Part 1, Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing on 1 February 1996 conducted the investigation of Case No.10/95 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by a group of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania members requesting to investigate if the 30 August 1995 Resolution No.1164 of the Government of Lithuania “On the capitalisation of the credits of some enterprises of the Ministry of Agriculture” is in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,

Article 13

of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Budgeting, Article 9 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture, and Part 1, Article 43 of Company Law of the Republic of Lithuania. The Constitutional Court has established: I On 30 August 1995 the Government of the Republic of Lithuania adopted its Resolution No.1164 “On the capitalisation of the credits of some enterprises of the Ministry of Agriculture” (Official Gazette “Valstybës Þinios” No.73-1713, 1995; hereinafter in the ruling referred to as the disputed Resolution of the Government), item 1 whereof permitted the Ministry of Agriculture to utilise 16,914,100 Lt from the Agriculture Support Fund of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania in order to repay the debt of the enterprises indicated in the supplement of the Resolution for the Lithuanian Bank of Agriculture by including the said means into the state capital share. The Government established in item 2 of this Resolution that the Bank of Agriculture shall cover the debt of the enterprises indicated in the supplement of the Resolution with the means of the said fund pointed out in item 1 only in the case that these enterprises pursuant to the procedure established by Company Law increase their authorised capital. In item 3 of the Resolution the Ministry of Agriculture is commissioned to subscribe for the shares which belong to the state in the enterprises indicated in the supplement of the Resolution, and to represent the state in these enterprises. The petitioner requests to investigate if the disputed Resolution of the Government is in compliance with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,

Article 13

The Ministry of Agriculture is permitted by the disputed Resolution of the Government to repay gratis and irretrievably the 16,914,100 Lt expenses of the enterprises enumerated in the supplement of the Resolution, and which function on the basis of private enterprise; i.e. the Ministry is permitted to cover the debts of the aforesaid enterprises for the Bank of Agriculture by utilising the means of the Agriculture Support Fund. These means are paid to the enterprises on the basis of individual selection, and not pursuant to certain rules which should be applied to all to every enterprise processing agricultural goods. The aforementioned enterprises, or companies, after the disputed Resolution of the Government had been adopted, acquired the right to never repay private expenses and debts. Besides, the shareholders of these enterprises were granted an undeserved right to get dividends, whereas the officials are indirectly pardoned from material responsibility and from that of every other kind for accomplished embezzlements which caused the said debts.
Following the disputed Resolution of the Government, a share of the means of the state budget which reside in the Agriculture Support Fund is being utilised by violating Article 13 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Budgeting, as well as Article 9 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture, i.e. the said means are not being utilised for the purpose which the aforesaid laws impose on the state means. In the opinion of the petitioner, the cover of the debts of individual enterprises is not provided for neither in Article 13 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Budgeting which regulates allocations of the appropriations of the state budget means for certain needs of the state, nor in Article 9 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture which establishes the application of the purposive financing of agricultural entities and partners of the agriculture market.
The petitioner argues that the enterprises enumerated in the supplement of the disputed Resolution of the Government are not obliged to repay the state the acquired means. They are instructed to increase their authorised capital (the state capital share) with the sum of the acquired means. The debts of the said enterprises, however, to cover which the state means are allocated, in fact do not increase the authorised capital, as these means pursuant to the disputed Resolution of the Government must be transferred to the Bank of Agriculture. In the opinion of the petitioner, the said means cannot be considered additional contributions to the authorised capital, therefore Part 1, Article 43 of Company Law which establishes that it is additional contributions of its shareholders and of other persons by which a company may increase its authorised capital is thereby violated. III When preparing the case for the court hearing, Jonas Panamariovas and Vytautas Poliûnas, secretaries of the Ministry of Agriculture, and Irena Paulauskienë, the Head of the Staff Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, representatives of the party concerned, indicated that certain enterprises which process goods of agriculture received a number of credits from the Bank of Agriculture but on the grounds of various reasons could not settle their accounts with farmers and repay credits to the bank in time. Taking into account this fact, and in order to create better conditions for the said enterprises to settle their accounts with producers of agricultural goods, the disputed Resolution of the Government was adopted. The said Resolution does not violate the equality of people, and privileges are not granted to individual persons. Therefore, in the opinion of the representatives of the party concerned, the disputed Resolution of the Government is legal and in compliance with the Constitution. The representatives of the party concerned maintain that the financial position of the Bank of Agriculture needed support, that the amount of problem loans which had been granted on the grounds of the decisions of the Government needed to be reduced, and conditions for the enterprises to settle their accounts with producers of agricultural goods for the sold goods had to be created. Part 2, Article 46 of the Constitution consolidates that the State shall support economic efforts and initiative which are useful to the community. According to item 5, Article 13 of the Law on Budgeting, appropriations from the State budget shall be made for the regulation of national economy. In the opinion of the representatives of the party concerned, the notion of “economy” includes agriculture - the priority branch of the national economy - as well. Item 13, Article 13 of the Law on Budgeting permits to allocate the means from the State budget for the implementation of not only the measures provided for, but for other measures pursuant to the laws of the Republic of Lithuania as well. Such is the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture. The norm of Part 2, Article 9 has provided for the opportunity for the Government to establish priorities, procedure and conditions of purposive financing, as well as other types of purposive financing. Item 2.2 of the 24 March 1995 Resolution No.421 of the Government “On forming and utilising the 1995 Agriculture Support Fund of the Republic of Lithuania” consolidates an opportunity to utilise the means of the said fund for other needs established by the Government as well. Thereby the Government made use of the right which it had been granted by laws and permitted nine enterprises to cover their debts for the Bank of Agriculture from the means of the Agriculture Support Fund. Thereby it was attempted to create better conditions for them to settle their accounts with producers of agricultural goods. By the disputed Resolution of the Government the Ministry of Agriculture was commissioned to subscribe for the shares which belong to the state of the enterprises enumerated in the supplement of the Resolution, as well as to represent the state in these enterprises. The representatives of the party concerned explained that the enterprises enumerated in the supplement of the disputed Resolution of the Government had been chosen taking account of their future perspective, as well as the following social and economical criteria: new technologies introduced, strategic location of the enterprises, producing capacity and the interests of producers of agricultural goods. The cover of the granted credits may not be used to cover the losses of the aforementioned enterprises, as merely settlements are being regulated and conditions are created to pay the farmers for their goods but never the expenses made are covered. The cover of the debts of the said enterprises for the Bank of Agriculture cannot be treated as an embezzlement of the state means. The state means are not lost by capitalising debts of enterprises because the state will further manage, utilise and dispose of the property - shares - which belongs to it. When considering the structure of the authorised capital, one can argue that the state influence to the management of the enterprises through the block of shares will increase along with the increase of the state capital share. IV Andrius Kubilius and Vidmantas Þiemelis, the representatives of the petitioner, in the court hearing confirmed the request of a group of the Seimas members and explained that the disputed Resolution violated essential principles of free market based on fair competition. They maintained that the disputed Resolution violated Part 4, Article 46 of the Constitution as well in which it is established that the law shall prohibit monopolisation of production and the market, and shall protect freedom of fair competition. The increase of the state share in the authorised capital of joint-stock companies is regulated by Part 2, Article 128 of the Constitution, whereas the transfer of the state capital into joint-stock companies should be regulated by the law. In the opinion of the representatives of the petitioner, constitutional provisions that the state shall support economic efforts which are useful to the community may be implemented only under the conditions mentioned in Part 4, Article 46 of the Constitution, i.e. when the state guarantees freedom of fair competition. Andrius Kubilius, a representative of the petitioner, explained that the contents of purposive financing as the category of economics may be understood only in the context of Article 9 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture. This Article permits to estimate the disposition of the state to create extraordinary financing conditions for individual branches of agriculture. This Article, however, does not mention whether the Government is entitled to pick up one or nine enterprises out of all enterprises or economical entities. V Jonas Panamariovas, a representative of the party concerned, in the public hearing explained that the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Lithuania checked the actions of the state officials who initiated, prepared, adopted and implemented the disputed Resolution of the Government, and found no corpus delicti. There exist more than 70% of shares which belong to the state in the nine enterprises enumerated in the supplement of the disputed Resolution of the Government. The said enterprises function at a loss and the shareholders were not paid the 1995 dividends whereas after their debts for the bank had been capitalised the coefficients of financial solvency of some of the enterprises improved. Vytautas Poliûnas, a representative of the party concerned, explained also that the Agriculture Support Fund is formed from the means assigned to the Programme of Promoting National Agriculture which are foreseen in the budget of the state. This fund may be disposed of by the Government, the Council of Buying up and Regulating Agricultural Goods, and County Commissions for Easy-Term Loans. The means of the aforementioned fund were designed to meet the needs of agriculture, therefore the disputed Resolution of the Government does not contradict Article 13 of the Law on Budgeting. The Constitutional Court holds that:
On the compliance of the 30 August 1995 Resolution No.1164 of the Government of Lithuania “On the capitalisation of the credits of some enterprises of the Ministry of Agriculture” with the Constitution. Part 1, Article 29 of the Constitution establishes: “All people shall be equal before the law, the court, and other State institutions and officers.” In the opinion of the petitioner, the disputed Resolution of the Government contradicts Part 1, Article 29 of the Constitution because the said Resolution permits the Ministry of Agriculture to cover the debts of certain enterprises for the Bank of Agriculture. The petitioner alleges that the Government, when covering the debts of only nine enterprises by the disputed Resolution, violated the constitutional principle of the equality of people. The principle that all people shall be equal before the law, the court, and other state institutions and officers is one of the primary principles which in its own turn is closely linked with the remaining constitutional principles and provisions. When interpreting the contents of the provision of Part 1, Article 29 of the Constitution, it is impossible not to consider the provision of Part 3, Article 46 of the Constitution which stipulates that the state shall regulate economic activity so that it serves the general welfare of the people. The aforementioned provisions by determining each other form constitutional pre-conditions to pass laws which respond to the conditions of national economy, the diversity and change of economical and social life. Thus the constitutional principle of equality of people of its own accord does not deny the fact that law may establish different legal regulation concerning certain categories of people who are in different situation. This should also be applied to legal persons, and not only to natural persons as the former are, as a rule, corporations of natural persons. One has to take it into account that the legislator may, when fulfilling his powers and passing laws, also formulate principles which serve as a basis for a particular law. These principles may not, however, be identified with the constitutional ones. The reciprocal interaction of the aforesaid principles has essential theoretical, as well as practical, significance for legal regulation. The principles established in laws may be altered by the means of law and, which is most important, they may never violate constitutional principles. Assessing whether an established different legal regulation is a grounded one, particular legal circumstances must be taken into account. First of all differences of legal situation of subjects and objects to which different legal regulation is applied must be considered; secondly, one has to take into account the conformity of legal acts to their hierarchy, scope of regulation, etc.; thirdly, one must assess if legal norms which establish special conditions answer the purpose and aim of the legal act. Validity of individual legal norms may be convincing only in the case that all aforementioned circumstances were taken into account. Should only one condition be ignored, doubts might arise concerning the compliance of a special legal norm with constitutional provisions. In the disputed Resolution of the Government the aim of different regulation is indicated - to create better conditions for enterprises which process the production of agriculture to settle their accounts with producers of agricultural goods. The representatives of the party concerned indicated criteria according to which the said enterprises had been chosen: they did not return credits to the Bank of Agriculture, and, furthermore, an attempt is being made to preserve new technologies, as well as producing capacities introduced, and their strategic location. The arguments presented allow to state that the constitutional principle of equality of people when the cover of the debts of only some enterprises was established was not violated. The petitioner also alleges that the Government by permitting with the disputed Resolution to utilise the means of the state budget in order to cover the debts of certain enterprises and by acquiring additional portion of shares of those enterprises created conditions for the said enterprises not to pay private expenses and debts. The shareholders of these enterprises were granted an undeserved right to get dividends whereas the officials of these enterprises are indirectly pardoned from material responsibility and from that of every other kind for accomplished embezzlements. Therefore the situation of the shareholders and officials of the said enterprises becomes a privileged one and this contradicts Part 1, Article 29 of the Constitution. This allegation of the petitioner is not supported with legal arguments. The disputed Resolution of the Government does not regulate the questions of dividend payment to the shareholders. The amount of dividends and their payments depend upon the results of the economic activity of the enterprise, and not upon the amount of the authorised capital. Neither does this Resolution regulate the questions of responsibility of persons who are responsible for economic and financial activity of the enterprises. All this is regulated in Company Law, as well as in other laws. If a breach of the law were established, then a question of responsibility of individual persons would arise. This is the problem of the application of legal norms, and not that of the compliance of the disputed Resolution of the Government with the Constitution. Taking into account all the arguments set forth a conclusion is to be drawn that the provision of the disputed Resolution of the Government to cover the debts of only some enterprises is in compliance with the principle of equality of people which is established in the Constitution.
On the compliance of the 30 August 1995 Resolution No.1164 of the Government of Lithuania “On the capitalisation of the credits of some enterprises of the Ministry of Agriculture” with Article 13 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Budgeting, Article 9 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture, and Part 1, Article 43 of Company Law of the Republic of Lithuania
The petitioner argues that the disputed Resolution of the Government contradicts Article 13 of the Law on Budgeting as the utilising the share of the means from the state budget residing in the Agriculture Support Fund does not answer its purpose - an individual debt of the enterprise is being covered by utilising the means of the state budget. The state budget is a centralised fund of financial reserve in which a certain portion of national income is accumulated and redistributed. It is annually approved of by the Seimas. Article 13 of the Law on Budgeting establishes that appropriations from the state budget shall be made for the following national needs: education, culture, health care and sport; social welfare and social relief; science; environmental protection; regulation of economic development; national defence; maintenance of state power, state government and law enforcement institutions; subsidies to regional and town budgets; public order and protection of society; development of the Republic’s foreign relations; the expenses of coping with the state debt; to increase the working cash balance of the state budget. In addition to the enumerated needs it is indicated that appropriations from the state budget shall be made for implementation of other measures pursuant to the laws of the Republic of Lithuania. In addition to other spheres of social life this law indicates that appropriations shall be made for “regulation of economic development” (item 5), as well as for “implementation of other measures pursuant to the laws of the Republic of Lithuania” (item 13). Thus the legislator set forth very widely the “national needs” as established in this Article of the said law, and he foresaw an opportunity to make appropriations pursuant to other laws as well. In the context of the case under investigation such is the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture. According to the doctrine of law, in case there exist an inconsistency between general and special legal norms, then special legal norms should be applied. Therefore, when deciding in this case whether the disputed Resolution of the Government is in compliance with the laws, one must base himself on the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture, and not on the Law on Budgeting.
The petitioner argues that the disputed Resolution of the Government contradicts Article 9 of the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture because the said law does not provide for any opportunity to cover particular debts of individual enterprises. The petitioner indicates that Article 9 of the said law prescribes only the application of the purposive financing of agricultural entities and partners of the agriculture market. In order to establish whether the disputed Resolution of the Government is in compliance with Article 9 of the said law, not only the contents of this Article, but that of other Articles of this law, as well as that of other legal norms and their reciprocal interaction must be assessed. Article 1 of the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture points out the aim of this law: to standardise economic relations of agricultural entities with the state institutions,

partners of the agriculture market; to establish the main measures of state regulation of the said relations; to create prerequisites of the implementation of the state agrarian policy and to sustain the balance in the agriculture market. When interpreting the contents of the norms of this law, Article 4 is significant in which it is established that “The state shall support, primarily on the basis of purposive programmes, major producers of market agricultural goods, the progress in science of agriculture, as well as in agricultural technology, the preservation and improvement of land and other natural resources, the implementation of bioorganic farming, the establishment of specialised market farms, and it shall protect the equality of entities of the agriculture in the market.” The Constitutional Court deems that the priorities and aims as set down in this law determine the interpretation of the contents and the meaning of particular norms of this law. Part 1, Article 5 of the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture establishes the main measures of state regulation of agriculture: quotas of buying up agricultural goods are guaranteed; the portion of the state food provision reserve is either replenished or sold out; the investments into agriculture are supported; the production of agricultural goods, as well as import and export of foodstuffs, are regulated; the quality of the goods is controlled; the activity of economical entities which dominate the market is restricted; the production of certain agricultural goods is either stimulated or restricted; the interests of the branch of agriculture are protected by international agreements. By summarising the measures indicated a conclusion may be drawn that here the law speaks about quotas, the state food provision, import and export, the quality of goods, restriction of the activity of economical entities, as well as that of the production of goods, the protection of interests by international agreements. Among other measures, it is directly indicated that the investments into agriculture are supported. Even though the ways of support of investments into agriculture are not defined in the said law, investments in law, however, are always linked to the utilisation of corresponding means in pursuit of income. The state support of investments into agriculture is implemented by establishing reduced tax rates (Article 10), and by granting credits (Article 8). In the latter Article it is foreseen that credits on easy terms shall be granted by the competition procedure through either the co-operatives of credits for agriculture, or commercial banks. Besides, it was provided that the state shall grant non-interest bearing loans from its own reserve in order to form a system of the co-operative credit and provide co-operatives of credit with tax deduction. Part 2, Article 5 of the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture establishes that the Government “may as well apply other means to regulate agriculture.” In the context of the case under investigation it is important to assess the character of the other means which could be applied by the Government in order to regulate agriculture apart from those particularly mentioned in this Article. On the basis of the systematic analysis of the contents of Article 5 of the said law, the Constitutional Court draws a conclusion that the Government, even though it can apply other means to regulate agriculture as well, may not to utilise the state financial reserve for the purposes which are incompatible with the general meaning of the measures foreseen in this law. Article 9 of the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture provides for the “purposive financing” of agricultural entities. In law financing, hence purposive one as well, is understood, as a rule, as the appropriation of financial means on gratuitous and irretrievable grounds. The legislator, by defining the directions of purposive financing in this Article, took into consideration the priorities of the production of agricultural goods, as well as other circumstances which are important to the activity of agricultural entities and partners of the agriculture market. In the 1995 state budget corresponding appropriations were allocated to finance the Programme of National Agriculture Activity in order to implement the measures provided for in the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture. The Government by its 24 March 1995 Resolution “On forming and utilising the 1995 Agriculture Support Fund of the Republic of Lithuania” formed the 1995 Agriculture Support Fund. This fund is formed from: the 1995 budget means assigned to finance the Programme of National Agriculture Activity; the 1994 state budget means assigned to finance the Programme of National Agriculture Activity and in fact transferred to the Agriculture Support Fund for the purpose of granting loans on easy terms; loans on easy terms which are being returned and which were granted to agricultural entities from the 1993 Spring Sowing Fund; loans on easy terms which are being returned and which economical entities were granted pursuant to particular resolutions of the Government. It may be held that the main resource of the Agriculture Support Fund is the means of the state budget. The Agriculture Support Fund is utilised for: granting credits on easy terms for producers of agricultural goods, as well as for legal and natural persons who are able to purchase material resources in centralised manner and sell them to producers of agricultural goods in favourable terms; promoting co-operation in agriculture; supporting agricultural companies which suffered from fires; stimulation of co-operative agricultural trade; other needs as established by the Government (item 2.

of the 24 March 1995 Resolution No.421 of the Government). Thus the means of this fund are assigned and utilised in order to grant credits for and finance agricultural entities and partners of the agriculture market. Thus, “other needs as established by the Government” pointed out in the Resolution of the Government “On forming and utilising the 1995 Agriculture Support Fund of the Republic of Lithuania”, must conform to the aims and priorities of supporting agriculture as laid down in the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture. The Constitutional Court also notes that the legislator when establishing the measures of state regulation by the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture (Article 5), as well as the purposive financing (Article 9), did not define in detail by means of what particular legal forms the Government may utilise the state means, hence the means of the Agriculture Support Fund as well. In Part 1, Article 5 of the said law the measures of the sate regulation are enumerated, and in Part 2 of this law it is stipulated: “The Government of Lithuania may as well apply other means to regulate agriculture.” Article 9 of the said law enumerates priorities of the purposive financing, as well as points out that the Government may establish another purposive financing. Therefore because of the vagueness of the notions used in this law premises arise to interpret the contents of the norms of the said law in various manner, as well as to ambiguously understand the limits of legal regulation. The Ministry of Agriculture was permitted by the disputed Resolution of the Government to utilise the means of the Agriculture Support Fund in order to cover the debts of certain enterprises for the Bank of Agriculture, as well as to acquire shares belonging to the state for the amount of those means in the enterprises which will correspondingly increase their authorised capital. This is defined as the “capitalisation of credits”. Such form of utilising the state means is not established in the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture. It is only the legislator who may establish the form of utilisation of the state means, as Part 2, Article 128 of the Constitution stipulates: “Procedures concerning the management, utilisation, and disposal of State property shall be established by law.” Taking into consideration the motives set forth a conclusion is to be drawn that the 30 August 1995 Resolution of the Government of Lithuania “On the capitalisation of the credits of some enterprises of the Ministry of Agriculture” contradicts the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture.
Part 1, Article 43 of Company Law establishes: “A company may increase its authorised capital by additional contributions of its shareholders and of other persons only by issuing new shares.” In the opinion of the petitioner, the disputed Resolution of the Government contradicts the aforesaid norm of the law, as after the debts of enterprises for the Bank of Agriculture had been covered with the state means, their authorised capital may not be increased because the said means remain with the bank. The enterprises thereby are forced to increase their authorised capital without additional contributions. When deciding if the disputed Resolution of the Government is in compliance with Part 1, Article 43 of Company Law, it is necessary to take into account the contents of the provisions of this Resolution, as well as to the fact that they inseparably interact with each other. The whole complex of these provisions consolidate a new form of utilisation of the state means which in the disputed Resolution of the Government is denominated as the capitalisation of credits. The Constitutional Court has judged in this ruling that the capitalisation of the credits contradict the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture, therefore the question concerning the compliance of the disputed Resolution of the Government with Part 1, Article 43 of Company Law is not to be decided. Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court has passed the following ruling: To recognise that the provision of the 30 August 1995 Resolution No.1164 of the Government of Lithuania “On the capitalisation of the credits of some enterprises of the Ministry of Agriculture” to cover the debts of only certain enterprises does not contradict the principle of equality of people which is consolidated in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. To recognise that the 30 August 1995 Resolution No.1164 of the Government of Lithuania “On the capitalisation of the credits of some enterprises of the Ministry of Agriculture” contradicts the Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture. This Constitutional Court ruling is final and not subject to appeal. The ruling is promulgated on behalf of the Republic of Lithuania. Justices of the Constitutional Court: Algirdas Gailiûnas Kæstutis Lapinskas Zigmas Levickis Vladas Pavilonis Pranas Vytautas Rasimavièius Stasys Staèiokas Teodora Staugaitienë Stasys Ðedbaras Juozas Þilys

🔗 Į oficialų šaltinį

DI paaiškinimas pagal oficialų įstatymo tekstą. Orientacinis, nepakeičia teisinės konsultacijos.