Case No. 14/96 Case No. 14/96 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA D E C I S I O N On the petition requesting interpretation of the 20 January 1997 ruling of the Constitutional Court

Article 2of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Remuneration for Work”.

The Constitutional Court has established: On 20 January 1997 the Constitutional Court passed a ruling wherein it was recognised that Item 3.1 of the 23 August 1996 Republic of Lithuania Government Resolution No. 1004 “On Increase of Minimal Remuneration for Work” contradicted Part 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as Part 1 of Article 499 of the Civil Code

Article 2of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Remuneration for Work.

The representatives of the party concerned request in their petition of 19 February 1997 to interpret certain questions which arose to them in connection with the said ruling. The Constitutional Court holds that: 1. The representatives of the party concerned request to interpret whether Item 3.2 of the disputed Government resolution became voided after Item 3.1 of the said resolution had been recognised contradicting Part 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as Part 1 of Article 499 of the Civil Code

Article 2of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Remuneration for Work.

The Constitutional Court notes that the issue of legality of Item 3.2 of the disputed resolution was not investigated in the case in question as the petitioner had not submitted any respective petition as regards this problem. Alongside, it should be noted that the Government adopted the 17 March 1997 Resolution No. 288 “On Recognition of Items 3, 3.1 and 3.2 of the 23 August 1996 Republic of Lithuania Government Resolution No. 1004 “On Increase of Minimal Remuneration for Work” as Being Voided” whereby it recognised that Items 3, 3.1 and 3.2 of the disputed resolution were voided (Official Gazette “Valstybës Þinios” No. 25-573, 1997).

1. The representatives of the party concerned request to interpret as to the application of the conclusion drawn in the holding part of the ruling 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”. The Constitutional Court points out that the conclusion in question of the Constitutional Court is based on the norm of Part 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Remuneration for Work stipulating that “an employee’s hourly remuneration (monthly salary) may not be less than the minimum hourly remuneration (monthly salary) established by the State”. Thus the representatives of the party concerned request to interpret matters concerning application of the legal norm. However, applying legal norms, their interpretation is a prerogative of institutions which apply the said norms, as well as that of courts.
2. The representatives of the party concerned request to interpret as to the application of Article 72 of the Law on the Constitutional Court after promulgation of the 20 January 1997 ruling of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court notes that Article 72 of the aforesaid law was not subject of investigation of the case in question, therefore it may not be interpreted.
3. In view of the motives set forth, the petition of the party concerned requesting to interpret certain questions in connection with the ruling in question of the Constitutional Court is to be declined. Conforming to Article 61 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court has adopted the following decision: To refuse to interpret the 20 January 1997 ruling of the Constitutional Court 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