Constitutional Court
22 October 2007
Facts
The case was initiated by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, which asked to examine whether the provision of the Law on State Pensions for Judges is in line with the Constitution and the constitutional principle of the rule of law.
Complaint
The applicant doubted whether the Constitution allowed for a legal regulation that would link the granting and payment of the state pension for judges to other income earned by a person. In the applicant's view, the contested legislation infringes a person's right to receive retirement pension benefits, and thus unjustifiably restricts a person's constitutional right to property, as well as infringes a citizen's right to receive a pension, guaranteed by the Constitution, which presupposes legal certainty and creates a legitimate expectation that, after the requisite length of service and after attaining the required age, a pension of the prescribed amount will be payable to the individual, which will guarantee a reasonable income. Furthermore, according to the applicant, the contested legislation restricts the right to choose one's work and business freely as enshrined in the Constitution, as well as the right of retired former judges to participate in economic activities.
Court‘s ruling
The Court held that the Constitution does not permit the establishment of a legal regulation under which a person to whom an old-age pension has been awarded and is being paid is, because of that fact, prevented from freely choosing their work and business. Such a restriction is relevant also when a person is prevented from choosing their work and business freely because, if they were to exercise that right, they would be deprived of the old-age pension awarded and which has been previously paid.
The Court noted that if the legislator establishes a social (material) guarantee for a judge after the termination of the judge's mandate, such as a judge's pension, it may also establish, in compliance with the Constitution, cases in which a judge's pension (which is linked to the constitutional status of a judge) is not granted to a former judge and/or the state pension for judges that was granted to a former judge is no longer paid to a judge; the constitutional grounds for the termination of a judge's mandate must be taken into account when the law establishes the cases in which a judge's pension is withheld from a former judge; otherwise, it would be contrary to the constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary and the courts.
The Court noted that the linking of the award of the pension to the income of a former judge as referred to in the contested provision, where the former judge has certain income on which contributions are calculated and paid or receives sickness, maternity, paternity, or unemployment benefits, is constitutionally unjustified. Such a legal framework effectively negates the pension for judges. This is incompatible with the constitutional principle of the independence of the judge and the judiciary, which presupposes social (material) guarantees for the judge in the event of termination of their mandate. Accordingly, the Court held that the provision of the Law was contrary to the Constitution and the constitutional principle of the rule of law.