Конституционный суд
29 июня 2010 года
Facts
The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court requested the Court to examine the constitutionality of the provisions of the Law on State Pensions for Judges, the Temporary Law on Recalculation and Payment of Social Benefits and the Law on State Pensions.
Complaint
The applicant questioned certain provisions in the calculation of pension of judges, including the legality of reducing pensions during a crisis without compensation, which, according to the applicant, could violate the principles of the independence of judges, social security, property rights and the rule of law.
Court‘s ruling
The Court's ruling notes that the legislator must differentiate the social (material) guarantees of judges according to the judicial system and the level of the court in which the guarantees are provided to judges; it must take into account that the Constitution implies the assignment of courts not only to a single system, but also to a number of systems, of which the Constitutional Court is a separate one, which has its own specific features, including the tenure of the judges of the Constitutional Court. It is stated that the legislator did not consider the specificity of the term of office of the Constitutional Court and its judges.
The Court noted that the legal regulation laid down in the Law on State Pensions for Judges, according to which the state pension of judges is differentiated according to a range of 5 years of judicial service, on the one hand, creates the possibility of aligning the amounts of the state pensions of judges with very different lengths of service as a judge and, on the other hand, of awarding state pensions of judges of very different amounts to judges with a very limited difference in the length of their judicial service. Such legal regulation is inconsistent with the concept of the state pension of judges as a constitutional social (material) guarantee for judges in the event of the termination of their mandate, and with the requirements of fairness, proportionality and reasonableness deriving from the constitutional principle of the rule of law.
The Court stated that when the economic and financial situation of the State is fundamentally changed, when, due to extraordinary circumstances (economic crisis, etc.), the economic and financial situation in the State is extremely difficult, for objective reasons, there may be a lack of funds for the performance of State functions and for the fulfilment of public interests, and therefore also for the material and financial needs of the courts. In such circumstances, the legislator may change the legal regulation, introduce less favourable legal regulation of salaries and pensions, if this is necessary to ensure vital interests of society and the State, and to protect other constitutional values. Consequently, when the economic and financial situation in the State is extremely difficult, the salaries and state pensions of judges may be reduced. Thus, in the Court's view, there is no reason to hold that the relevant provisions of the Temporary Law are contrary to the Constitution.