of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 2 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Remuneration for Work 20 January 1997, Vilnius The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Egidijus Jaraðiûnas, Kæstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Augustinas Normantas, Vladas Pavilonis, Jonas Prapiestis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavièius, Teodora Staugaitienë, and Juozas Þilys, the secretary of the hearing - Daiva Pitrënaitë, the petitioner - Benjaminas Merèaitis, Head of the Labour Relations Division of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, and Vita Safjan, Head of the Analysis and Prognosis Division of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, both are the representatives of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing on 20 December 1995 conducted the investigation of Case No. 14/96 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by the petitioner - Rokiðkis Regional District Court - requesting to investigate if Item 3.1 of the 23 August 1996 Republic of Lithuania Government Resolution No. 1004 “On increase of minimal remuneration for work” is in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,
of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 2 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Remuneration for Work. The Constitutional Court has established: I On 18 October 1996, the petitioner - Rokiðkis Regional District Court - was investigating a civil case subsequent to the action of the plaintiff B. Balèiûnas against the respondent the private company “Kavoliðkis” concerning damage compensation on the grounds of harmed health. By its interlocutory ruling the said court suspended the investigation of the case and appealed to the Constitutional Court with the request to investigate if Item 3.1 of the 23 August 1996 Republic of Lithuania Government Resolution No. 1004 “On increase of minimal remuneration for work” (Official Gazette “Valstybës þinios”, No. 81-1956, 1996; hereinafter in the ruling referred to as the disputed Resolution) is in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,
of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 2 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Remuneration for Work. II The petitioner grounds its request in its interlocutory ruling, as well as its explanatory paper, on the following legal arguments. The petitioner points out that Item 3.1 of the Government Resolution establishes that “beginning from 1 September 1996, the calculated damage compensation to persons who suffered injury when at work may not be less than the portion of the sum of 420 Lt which corresponds the loss of the percentage of professional working-capacity”. The petitioner is of the opinion that this norm contradicts
of the Civil Code wherein it is prescribed that “providing an employee has been crippled or otherwise his health has been harmed when fulfilling his work (or official) duties through the fault of the organisation or natural person that must pay social insurance contributions for him, then the said organisation or natural person must compensate the damage to the person who has suffered injury so that the inflicted damage does not exceed the sum of money which was designated and the pension actually received. Exceptions of this rule may be established only by the laws of the Republic of Lithuania”. The petitioner concludes from this norm that “it is the difference between the inflicted harm to the person who suffered injury and the money sum of pension which was designated to him and which he actually receives that constitutes damage compensation which must be paid by the organisation through the fault of which the said damage was inflicted”. As the average monthly remuneration of the plaintiff is 369.64 Lt, then, in the opinion of the petitioner, conforming to
of the Civil Code, the respondent should monthly repay the damage by paying 67.32 Lt which is constituted by the difference between the inflicted harm and the designated and actually received pension. The petitioner indicates that Part 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Remuneration for Work provides that “An employee’s hourly remuneration (monthly salary) may not be less than the minimum hourly wage (monthly salary) established by the State”. The average monthly salary of the plaintiff B. Balèiûnas was 369.64 Lt. On the day when he lost his working-capacity, i.e., on 16 May 1996, the minimal monthly salary was established as 210 Lt by Item 1.2 of the Government 28 December 1995 No. 1635 “On increase of minimal amounts and other payments”. The petitioner is of the opinion that the salary which was received by the plaintiff exceeded the said minimal monthly salary, therefore the rights of the plaintiff were not violated. The petitioner also points out that according to
of the Civil Code, exceptions of these provisions may be established only by laws of the Republic of Lithuania. In the opinion of the petitioner, such exceptions must be provided by the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Insurance against Accidents at Work as it is established in
The petitioner alleges that it is not clear why, according to the disputed Resolution, “for one group of employees only minimal monthly salary, i.e., at present 300 Lt, is guaranteed by law, whereas for another group of employees, i.e., those who suffered from harmed health at work - 420 Lt - as minimal social guarantee.” Besides, the petitioner concludes on the grounds of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Individual Income Security that the Government is entitled to index constant payments (grants, salaries, pensions, social benefits) but not to change the amount for damage which is to be compensated. III When the case was being prepared for judicial investigation, as well as during the court hearing, the representatives of the party concerned presented the following counter-arguments.
The said item “established a minimal guarantee of the compensation for the calculated damage, i.e., the sum from which damage compensation is calculated but not the manner of damage compensation. The latter is established by the
of the Civil Code.” The disputed Item 3.1 of the Government Resolution is in compliance with the Law on Remuneration for Work as the minimal guarantee of damage compensation which is established by the said item is not linked with a minimal average remuneration. In addition, the representatives of the party concerned allege that the issues raised by the petitioner are the matter of application of legal provisions while investigating a civil case regarding damage compensation but never the object subject to investigation as provided in Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court holds that: 1. On 23 August 1996, the Government adopted Resolution No. 1004 “On increase of minimal remuneration for work” and confirmed by Item 1 thereof that beginning from 1 September 1996 the minimal monthly wage shall be 300 Lt, and the minimal hourly remuneration shall be 1.76 Lt. By establishing a minimal monthly wage and minimal hourly remuneration, the Government implemented Item 2 of the 9 January 1991 Supreme Council Resolution No. 1-925 “On the Enforcement of the Law on Remuneration for Work” whereby it was established that “the Government of the Republic of Lithuania shall establish the minimum hourly remuneration (minimum monthly salary), taking into consideration the approved minimum cost living”. It is established in Item 3.1 of the said disputed Government Resolution that beginning from 1 September 1996, the calculated damage compensation to persons who suffered injury when at work may not be less than the portion of the sum of 420 Lt which corresponds the percentage of loss of the professional working-capacity. The petitioner alleges that Item 3.1 of the said resolution contradicts the Constitution, Article 2 of the Law on Remuneration for Work and
of the Civil Code wherein it is established that compensation for material damage due to harmed health when at work may be regulated only by law. In the opinion of the petitioner, compensation for material damage due to harmed health when at work may be established only by law. The Government is entitled to index constant payments (grants, wages, pensions, social benefits) but it has no right to change the amount of the damage which is to be compensated. 2.
of the Law on Labour Protection prescribes: “The damage compensation of working-capacity loss, as well as that of treatment, nursing, prosthetics and other expenses of the employee who due to an accident at work, occupational disease or other type of harmed health connected with his work has lost his working-capacity, and in case of the death of the person who suffered injury, the damage compensation to his family or other persons shall be regulated by the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Insurance against Accidents at Work as well as other laws.”
of the Civil Code establishes: “The damage which was inflicted to the personality or property of a natural person, as well as the damage which was inflicted to an organisation, must be fully compensated by the person that inflicted it with the exception of the cases provided by the laws of the Republic of Lithuania.” This norm establishes an important principle of damage compensation: the damage inflicted to the person or property must be fully compensated. Alongside, it must be noted that, however, the law may also provide for other cases when the inflicted damage is to be not fully compensated or the person who inflicted the damage is exonerated from damage compensation (e.g., provided the person who suffered injury is guilty himself (Article 497); in case of indispensable defence (Article 487), etc.).
of the Civil Code stipulates: “Provided a natural person has been crippled or his health was harmed otherwise, then the organisation or the natural person that is responsible for the damage must compensate the remuneration of the person who suffered injuries which he lost due to the loss or diminishing of his working-capacity, as well as the expenses made because of the harmed health (improved nourishment, prosthetics, nursing (provided the nursing was accomplished by outsiders), treatment expenses (except for free treatment), etc.).” It is evident from the content of this norm that the wage of the person who suffered injury prior to his injury and which he lost or it decreased due to the infliction constitutes damage compensation. Additional expenses which had to be made because of the injury must also be compensated to the person who suffered injuries. The employee’s remuneration for work, as a rule, depends on labour demand and supply on the labour market, as well as the amount and quality of work and the activity results of an enterprise. However, according to Part 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Remuneration for Work, “an employee’s hourly remuneration (monthly salary) may not be less than the minimum hourly remuneration (monthly salary) established by the State”. Hence a conclusion may be drawn that in cases when an employee’s hourly remuneration (monthly salary) prior to the injury was less than the established minimal hourly remuneration (minimal monthly salary), the damage compensation must be calculated according to the minimal remuneration established by law.
of the Civil Code prescribes that “providing an employee has been crippled or otherwise his health has been harmed when fulfilling his work (or official) duties through the fault of the organisation or natural person that must pay social insurance contributions for him, then the said organisation or natural person must compensate the damage to the person who has suffered injury so that than the inflicted damage does not exceed the sum of money which was designated and the pension actually received. Exceptions of this rule may be established only by the laws of the Republic of Lithuania”. The following conclusions are to be drawn from the content analysis of Articles 498 and 499 of the Civil Code and that of Article 2 of the Law on Remuneration for Work: 1) the amount of damage compensation depends on the wage received prior to injury at work; 2) the amount of the damage is the portion of the sum of the wage which corresponds to the loss of the percentage of the working-capacity; 3) the damage is compensated to the person who suffered injures so that the inflicted damage does not exceed the sum of the benefit received or the pension designated after the health infliction and actually received; 4) provided that prior to the injury the wage of the employee who suffered infliction was less than the minimum remuneration established by the State, then damage compensation is calculated according to the minimum wage established by the State. The said provisions concerning damage compensation must be consolidated and changed only by law. The Government by establishing the minimal compensation of calculated damage to persons due to harmed health at work by Item 3.1 of its 23 August 1996 Resolution No. 1004 “On increase of minimal remuneration for work”, however, changed the provisions of material damage compensation which are established by law and thereby interfered into the sphere regulated by the legislator. Therefore Item 3.1 of the said Government Resolution contradicts Part 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution,
Alongside, it should be noted that wages of a significant portion of people decreased due to economic difficulties and inflation, thus the issue of compensation for harmed health suffered at work is very urgent. However, to resolve issues linked with compensation of such damage is possible only by legal regulation. The Government may influence the aforementioned processes by submitting respective motions to the legislator, by increasing or indexing minimal remuneration pursuant to the procedure provided by law but never by correcting legal norms by its acts. 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 Item 3.1 of the 23 August 1996 Republic of Lithuania Government Resolution No. 1004 “On increase of minimal remuneration for work” contradicts Part 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as
of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Remuneration for Work. 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: Egidijus Jaraðiûnas Kæstutis Lapinskas Zigmas Levickis Augustinas Normantas Vladas Pavilonis Jonas Prapiestis Pranas Vytautas Rasimavièius Teodora Staugaitienë Juozas Þilys
DI paaiškinimas pagal oficialų įstatymo tekstą. Orientacinis, nepakeičia teisinės konsultacijos.