Year of the Constitution 2022
Titulinė skaidrė
Teismo sudėtis
Salė
Vytis
Lt Fr

On the period of service for the purposes of granting the state pension of officials and servicemen

Anonymised

Case no 15-A/2020

 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF POINT 1 (WORDING OF 25 JUNE 2015) OF PARAGRAPH 3 OF ARTICLE 16 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON THE STATE PENSIONS OF OFFICIALS AND SERVICEMEN WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

16 July 2021, no KT129-A-N10/2021
Vilnius

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court: Elvyra Baltutytė, Vytautas Greičius, Danutė Jočienė, Giedrė Lastauskienė, Vytautas Mizaras, Algis Norkūnas, Daiva Petrylaitė, and Janina Stripeikienė

The court reporter – Daiva Pitrėnaitė

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1 and 531 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, at the hearing before the Constitutional Court on 15 July 2021, considered, under written procedure, the constitutional justice case (no 15-A/2020) subsequent to the petition (no 1A-142/2020) of the petitioner [data not made public] requesting an investigation into whether point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, insofar as, under that point, the actual period of service of officials and servicemen in the military units of the USSR, the units of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, or other units of the USSR after 11 March 1990 in cases where a person performed such service, according to the petitioner, on instruction or assignment given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania and thus performed functions important to the Republic of Lithuania, acted in the interests of the Republic of Lithuania and for the benefit of the Republic of Lithuania is not regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, was in conflict with Articles 29 and 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

The circumstances of the petition and the arguments of the petitioner

1. By means of its decision of 25 May 2018, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court granted the petitioner’s complaint and annulled the decisions taken against him by the Board of the State Social Insurance Fund and its territorial division, according to which the period of service in the LSSR State Security Committee from 11 March 1990 until 31 August 1991 was not included in the calculation of the state pension of officials and servicemen to be granted to the petitioner.

By means of its decision of 25 March 2020, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania granted the appeal of the territorial division of the Board of the State Social Insurance Fund, annulled the decision of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court of 25 May 2018 and rejected the complaint of the petitioner as unfounded, and ordered that the afore-mentioned period be not included in the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, having held that, according to point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials, the period of service after 11 March 1990 may be included in the person’s period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen only if that person was forcibly recruited for compulsory military service under the Law of the USSR on General Military Service, but there was no evidence in the petitioner’s case that his service in the period after 11 March 1990 was coercive.

2. The petitioner applied to the Constitutional Court, requesting an investigation into whether point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, insofar as, under that point, the actual period of service of officials and servicemen in the military units of the USSR, the units of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, or other units of the USSR after 11 March 1990 in cases where a person performed such service on instruction or assignment given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania and thus performed functions important to the Republic of Lithuania, acted in the interests of the Republic of Lithuania and for the benefit of the Republic of Lithuania is not regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, was in conflict with Articles 29 and 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

3. The petition is based on the following arguments.

3.1. According to the petitioner, the impugned legal regulation violates the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, because the actual period of service by persons in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR after 11 March 1990 is not regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen only due to the fact that the persons concerned do not meet the condition to be conscripted for forced compulsory military service, although they performed service in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR after 11 March 1990, according to the petitioner, on instruction or assignment given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania and, during that service, they performed functions important to the Republic of Lithuania, acted in the interests of the Republic of Lithuania and for the benefit of the Republic of Lithuania, and, thus, were loyal to the State of Lithuania.

In the petitioner’s opinion, the performance of duties, on instruction or assignment given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania, in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR that operated in Lithuania after 11 March 1990 could be regarded as forced service, because after receiving the relevant instructions from the officials of the Republic of Lithuania, such persons were not free to choose how to behave, their will was constrained.

3.2. The petitioner also notes that persons who acted in the interests of the State of Lithuania should be regarded as the persons specified in point 1 of paragraph 3 (wording of 7 May 2020) of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen; the period of service of such persons after 11 March 1990 in the internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs that carried out the security and control of the penitentiary establishments operating in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania is included in the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, because they remained in that service in order to assist the Republic of Lithuania, performed functions important to the Republic of Lithuania, and acted in the interests of the Republic of Lithuania. According to the petitioner, persons who served in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR, as well as persons who served in the corrective labour establishments and the remand prisons, were loyal to the Republic of Lithuania. Therefore, according to the petitioner, persons when serving in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR, and acting in the interests of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as performing functions important to the State of Lithuania, had the reasonable expectation that this period of service would be included in the calculation of the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen in the same way as this is done with respect to persons who served in the internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs that carried out the security and control of the penitentiary establishments operating in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania.

3.3. Thus, in the opinion of the petitioner, after establishing in point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen that the period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR after 11 March 1990 is not included in the calculation of the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen solely because those persons remained in the service of those systems of service of the USSR not on the basis of conscription for forced compulsory military service, but when carrying out assignments given by state officials of the Republic of Lithuania, the principle of the equality of the rights of persons, entrenched in Article 29 of the Constitution, as well as Article 52 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, was violated.

II

The arguments of the representative of the party concerned

4. In the course of the preparation of the case for the hearing before the Constitutional Court, written explanations were received from Algimantas Dumbrava, a member of the Seimas, acting as the representative of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned, in which it is maintained that point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen was not in conflict with the Constitution.

The position of the representative of the party concerned is based on the following arguments.

4.1. The representative of the party concerned notes that, according to point 1 of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 May 2020) of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, the period of service after 11 March 1990 may be regarded as the period of service required for granting the pension only in the specific cases pointed out in that law, i.e. only if a person worked in the units of the internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs that carried out the security and control of the penitentiary establishments operating in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, or if he performed forced compulsory military service in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR that operated in Lithuania. Such a legal regulation was established taking into account, inter alia, the rulings of the Constitutional Court of 22 February 2013 and 20 June 2016. It is noted in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, among others, that “there are no constitutional grounds that would enable the actual period of service after 11 March 1990 in other units of internal troops or units of internal affairs of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, as well as in the armed forces, border guard service, customs, security, or other systems of service of the USSR, to be regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen”.

4.2. The representative of the party concerned points out that the right to the pension of persons who have served in one or another structure, the lawful possibility of including certain periods in the calculation of a social insurance pension or a state pension, the lawful possibility of regarding those periods as equivalent to the period of employment or service was associated with their legitimate expectations during their employment or service. In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, assessing the actual period of service in the units of the armed forces of the USSR, the units of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, or other units of the USSR after 11 March 1990, where a person performed such service on instruction or assignment given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania and thus performed functions important to the Republic of Lithuania, acted in the interests of the Republic of Lithuania and for the benefit of the Republic of Lithuania, it should be noted that, since 1 January 1995, when the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen (on whose basis, inter alia, the period of service for the purposes of the calculation of the state pension of officials and servicemen is determined) came into force, it has never stipulated that the period of service in the units of the armed forces of the USSR, the units of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, or other units of the USSR after 11 March 1990 is regarded as the period of service required for granting a state pension, so the corresponding expectations were not confirmed.

4.3. The representative of the party concerned notes that account should also be taken of the fact that the State Security Department of the Republic of Lithuania, i.e. a lawfully functioning institution of the Republic of Lithuania, was established in Lithuania on 26 March 1990, while the applicant continued to serve in the LSSR State Security Committee for some time also after 11 March 1990.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

The impugned and related legal regulation

5. In this constitutional justice case, the Constitutional Court investigates whether point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen was in conflict with the Constitution, insofar as, under that point, the actual period of service of officials and servicemen in the military units of the USSR, the units of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, or other units of the USSR after 11 March 1990 in cases where a person performed such service, according to the petitioner, on instruction or assignment given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania and thus performed functions important to the Republic of Lithuania, acted in the interests of the Republic of Lithuania and for the benefit of the Republic of Lithuania is not regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen.

6. It should be noted that the Constitutional Court, in its rulings assessing the constitutionality of the provisions of point 1 (wordings of 18 January 2007, 2 October 2012, 3 December 2013, and 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, has revealed the changes in the legal regulation related to the inclusion of the period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, and other systems of service of other states, inter alia, the USSR, in the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen.

6.1. In its rulings of 22 February 2013 and 20 June 2016, the Constitutional Court held that:

on 21 March 1990, the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania issued an appeal to the persons who had been working in the internal affairs establishments, whereby all the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, irrespective of their nationality and world view, who had the experience of working in the internal affairs establishments and were ready to take an oath of allegiance to Lithuania and to serve it were invited to continue to work in good faith; the appeal of the Supreme Council contained the provision ensuring that “the social guarantees of the persons working in the interior will be preserved: pensions will be paid irrespective of the state in which the person performed service; the rank achieved will be retained; the average remuneration of an official will be higher than the average salary in the Republic”; thus, after restoring its independence, by means of the said appeal, the Republic of Lithuania took on the obligation to the persons who had been working in the internal affairs system and were loyal to the State of Lithuania to preserve their social guarantees acquired before the restoration of independence “irrespective of the state in which the person performed service”, i.e. inter alia, irrespective of the fact that the person performed such service in the internal affairs system of the USSR; however, the Republic of Lithuania did not undertake any obligations to the persons who were not “ready to take an oath of allegiance to Lithuania and to serve it” after 11 March 1990, nor did it undertake any obligations to preserve social guarantees acquired while serving in the internal affairs system of the USSR after 11 March 1990;

the period of service of officials and servicemen necessary to receive the state pension of officials and servicemen was regulated for the first time through the provisional legal regulation established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, inter alia, through the government resolution (No 490) of 25 June 1992 on the pension provision of the officials and servicemen of the system of the interior; under the provisional legal regulation established by the Government, which was in force until 31 December 1994, the length of service qualifying for the state pension of officials and servicemen (pension for the years served) included, inter alia, the period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, or the internal affairs system of the USSR; taking into account, inter alia, the above-mentioned appeal of 21 March 1990 by the Supreme Council to the people who had worked in the internal affairs establishments, the legal regulation established by the Government, which was effective until 31 December 1994, was to be understood as creating the obligation to include in the length of service qualifying for the grant of the state pension of officials and servicemen (pension for the years served) only the period served in the armed forces, border guard service, or the internal affairs system of the USSR before 11 March 1990.

6.2. In the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 20 June 2016, it was also noted that, on 30 September 1991, the Government adopted the resolution (No 398) on the former non-commissioned officers, praporshchiks (warrant officers), and servicemen of the internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs who entered service in the system of the interior of the Republic of Lithuania; by means of this resolution, “seeking to create the conditions for the former non-commissioned officers, praporshchiks (warrant officers), and servicemen of the internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs to continue service in the system of the interior of the Republic of Lithuania”, the Government decided to establish that, with respect to the said persons, who had performed service in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania and subsequently entered service in the system of the interior of the Republic of Lithuania, the period served in the USSR armed forces and the internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs would be included in the length of service qualifying to receive the pension of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as a percentage supplementing remuneration for the years served in the system of the interior; other social guarantees established for the officials of the system of the interior under the laws and resolutions of the Republic of Lithuania also apply to the above-mentioned officials who entered service in the system of the interior of the Republic of Lithuania.

6.3. Thus, as stated, inter alia, in the rulings of the Constitutional Court of 22 February 2013 and 20 June 2016, according to provisional legal regulation (established by the Government) of the social guarantees of officials and servicemen, only the period served in the armed forces, border guard service, or internal affairs system of the USSR before 11 March 1990 was included in the period of service required for granting the state pension (pension for the years served) of officials and soldiers.

7. In the context of this constitutional justice case, it should also be noted that, on 26 August 1991, the Government adopted the resolution (No 360) on the social rehabilitation of the employees of the establishments of the USSR Ministry of Defence, the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the USSR State Security Committee, as well as the social guarantees of their families, whose subpoint 1.4 stipulated that, with respect to the former employees of the establishments (subject to liquidation by means of government acts) of the USSR Ministry of Defence, the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the USSR State Security Committee who expressed their wish to work for the Republic of Lithuania and who had not committed crimes against it were entitled to the guarantees that, with or after the acquisition of the right to a state social insurance pension, the period of their service in the said establishments is included in the calculation. Thus, by means of this government resolution, the Republic of Lithuania has undertaken the obligation to include in the length of service required to receive that pension the period of service of the employees of the mentioned establishments who had expressed their wish to work for the Republic of Lithuania and who had not committed crimes against it.

8. It should be noted from the aspect relevant to this constitutional justice case that, by means of the above-mentioned government resolution (No 360) of 26 August 1991, the Republic of Lithuania undertook the obligation to include in the length of service required to receive the state pension of officials and servicemen the whole period of service in the establishments (subject to liquidation by means of government acts) of the USSR Ministry of Defence, the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the USSR State Security Committee; however, according to the aforementioned provisional legal regulation adopted by the Government, which was in force until 31 December 1994, no obligation was made to include in the period of service required for granting a state pension the period of service in, inter alia, the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR after 11 March 1990.

9. On 13 December 1994, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of the Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecution Service, which came into force on 1 January 1995. This law specified, inter alia, the persons who were granted and paid the state pension of officials and servicemen, the grounds and conditions for granting and paying that pension, and its amounts.

That law has been amended and/or supplemented on more than one occasion, inter alia, by the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on the State Pensions of the Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecution Service, the Department of Prisons and the Establishments and State Enterprises Subordinate to It, which was adopted by the Seimas on 19 May 2005 and which came into force on 1 June 2005; by means of the latter law, the Law on the State Pensions of the Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, State Security, National Defence, and the Prosecution Service (wording of 13 December 1994, as subsequently amended and supplemented) was set out in its new wording, and later was also amended by means of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending and Supplementing the Title and Articles 1, 3, 6, 12, and 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of the Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecution Service, the Department of Prisons and the Establishments and State Enterprises Subordinate to It, which was adopted by the Seimas on 18 January 2007 and which amended, inter alia, the title of the law, by setting it out as follows: “The Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen”.

It should be noted from the aspect relevant to this constitutional justice case that, when defining in the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen which periods prior to the entry into force of that law on 1 January 1995 may be regarded as equivalent to the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, it was stipulated that only the actual period of service until 11 March 1990 in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of other states (except service in extermination squads and battalions) is regarded as equivalent to the period of service required for granting a state pension.

10. On 25 June 2015, the Seimas adopted, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Articles 3, 6, 7, 9, and 16 of the Law (No I-693) on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen and Supplementing the Law with Article 152. By means of that law, point 1 (wording of 3 December 2013) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen was set out in its wording impugned in the constitutional justice case at issue.

10.1. Point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16, titled “The Entry into Force of the Law and Its Application”, of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen prescribed the following:

With respect to persons who entered service as officials or servicemen in the systems of the interior, state security, national defence, the Prosecution Service, the Special Investigation Service, or the Department of Prisons or the establishments and state enterprises subordinate to it, or as customs officials (in the customs system to work in customs mobile groups or customs posts, or to gather criminal intelligence and/or carry out pretrial investigations), the following periods prior to 1 January 1995 shall be regarded as the period of service required for granting the pension:

(1) the actual period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service (with the exception of service in extermination squads or battalions) of other states prior to 11 March 1990 and the actual period of forced compulsory military service performed after 11 March 1990 in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR by persons conscripted by the military commissariats of the USSR operating in Lithuania provided that the person does not receive a pension of another state for that period of service;

[…]”

10.1.1. Thus, according to point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, only the actual period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service (with the exception of service in extermination squads or battalions) of other states prior to the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania on 11 March 1990 was regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen.

10.1.2. At the same time, it should be noted that the legal regulation laid down in point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen also established an exception – the actual period of service in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of other states after 11 March 1990 was also regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen in cases where that period was the actual period of forced compulsory military service by persons conscripted by the USSR military commissariats operating at the time in the territory of Lithuania. Consequently, according to the impugned legal regulation laid down in point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, no other period of service after 11 March 1990 in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR, with the exception of forced compulsory military service, was regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen.

10.1.3. In this context, it should be noted that, in its ruling of 22 February 2013, the Constitutional Court recognised, inter alia, that point 1 (wording of 2 October 2012) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, insofar as, having prescribed that, with respect to the persons specified in that paragraph the actual period of forced military service in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service (except service in extermination squads and battalions) of the USSR prior to 11 March 1990 is included in the period of service necessary in order to grant the state pension of officials and servicemen, it did not prescribe that the period of such service after 11 March 1990 is included in the period of service necessary in order to grant that pension to the persons who became citizens of the Republic of Lithuania after they had made a choice regarding citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to their conscription to military service in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR, or at the time of such military service, was in conflict with the Constitution.

Thus, the legal regulation enshrined in point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, under which the actual period of forced compulsory military service after 11 March 1990 by persons conscripted by the USSR military commissariats operating in Lithuania was regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, was established taking into account the above-mentioned ruling of the Constitutional Court of 22 February 2013.

10.2. Summarising the legal regulation laid down in point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, it should be noted that, according to that legal regulation, after the actual time of military service until 11 March 1990 in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR, among others, in the State Security Committee, became to be regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, the actual period of such service after 11 March 1990 was not regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, even if the person performed such service possibly on instruction given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania.

10.3. It should be noted that the impugned legal regulation, entrenched in point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen has been amended, inter alia, by means of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 16 of the Law (No I-693) on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, which was adopted by the Seimas on 14 June 2018, by which point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen was set out in its new wording, inter alia, by stipulating in the said point that, with respect to persons who entered service as officials or servicemen in the systems of the interior, state security, national defence, the Prosecution Service, the Special Investigation Service, or the Department of Prisons or the establishments and state enterprises subordinate to it, or as customs officials or officials of the Dignitary Protection Service, the actual period of service after 11 March 1990 in the internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs that carried out the security and control of the penitentiary establishments operating in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania was regarded as the period of service required for granting a pension.

Thus, the legal regulation consolidated in point 1 (wording of 14 June 2018) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen established another exception when the period of service in institutions of the interior of another state after the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania on 11 March 1990, which is the actual period of service after 11 March 1990 in the internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs that had operated in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania and carried out the security and control of the penitentiary establishments operating in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, was regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen.

It should be mentioned that such a legal regulation was entrenched in point 1 of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen after the Constitutional Court had recognised in its ruling of 20 June 2016 that the legal regulation laid down in point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen had been in conflict with the Constitution, insofar as, under that legal regulation, the actual period of service in the units of the internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs while carrying out the functions of the security and control of the corrective labour establishments and remand prisons functioning in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, if it had been performed from 11 March 1990 until the security and control of the said establishments had been brought under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Lithuania, was not regarded as the period of service required for granting the said pension.

11. In the context of this constitutional justice case, it should be mentioned that, in its jurisprudence, inter alia, in its rulings of 22 February 2013 and 20 June 2016, the Constitutional Court noted that, upon the restoration of its independence on 11 March 1990, the Republic of Lithuania brought under its jurisdiction the former state governance institutions that, in the Lithuanian SSR, had fallen under republic or union-republic jurisdiction, inter alia, those within the system of internal affairs; the internal affairs system was brought under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Lithuania and was reformed with the aim of ensuring public order and the security of society.

12. It should also be noted from the aspect relevant to this constitutional justice case that the Government, by means of its resolution (No 77) of 26 March 1990 on the establishment of the State Security Department under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania and the appointment of its Director General, decided to “suspend the activities of the LSSR State Security Committee and establish the State Security Department under the Government” and appoint the Director General of that department.

II

The provisions of the Constitution and the official constitutional doctrine

13. In this constitutional justice case, the Constitutional Court investigates whether the impugned legal regulation governing the calculation of the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen was in conflict with Articles 29 and 52 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

14. Article 52 of the Constitution prescribes: “The State shall guarantee its citizens the right to receive old-age and disability pensions, as well as social assistance in the event of unemployment, sickness, widowhood, the loss of the breadwinner, and in other cases provided for by law.”

14.1. The Constitutional Court has noted on more than one occasion that, under the Constitution, the law may also provide for other pensions and social assistance in addition to those expressis verbis indicated in Article 52 of the Constitution; after the types of pensions, the persons entitled to a pension, the grounds and conditions for granting and paying pensions, and their amounts have been established in laws, the duty arises for the state to follow the constitutional principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations in the area of the relationships connected with pension provision (inter alia, the rulings of 6 February 2012, 22 February 2013, and 20 June 2016).

14.2. The pensions other than those directly identified in Article 52 of the Constitution are currently established, inter alia, in the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on State Pensions; state pensions differ as to their nature and character from state social insurance old-age pensions, as well as from other state social insurance pensions: state pensions are paid from the state budget and are granted to persons in recognition of service or merit to the State of Lithuania or as compensation to victims specified in the law (inter alia, the rulings of 24 December 2008 and 6 February 2012); the provision regarding the obligation undertaken by the state under the law to grant and pay a particular pension to a person who meets the conditions established by law, as well as the provision regarding the right of such a person to demand that the state fulfil the said obligation, is also applicable to cases where state pensions are granted to persons for certain service or in recognition of merit to the State of Lithuania or as compensation to victims (inter alia, the rulings of 6 February 2012, 22 February 2013, and 20 June 2016).

The Constitutional Court has noted that the discretion of the legislature in establishing the granting of state pensions is broader than in regulating other pensions; the conditions for granting state pensions may be very different and may depend on, inter alia, the particularities of service and the economic capacities of the state (inter alia, the rulings of 24 December 2008, 6 May 2015, and 26 January 2016).

14.3. The Constitutional Court has noted on more than one occasion that the purpose of the state pension of officials and servicemen is, inter alia, to compensate for difficult, responsible, often risk-involving and dangerous service for the state; the particularities of state pensions permit the legislature, taking account of all significant circumstances and having regard to the norms and principles of the Constitution, to establish relevant conditions for granting those pensions; the receipt of those pensions is associated with the particular status of a certain person (his/her service, merit, or other circumstances on which the granting of a state pension depends) (inter alia, the rulings of 24 December 2008 and 22 February 2013).

It has been noted in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court that, when regulating the granting of the state pensions of officials and servicemen, the legislature must define, among others, the period of service required for eligibility to this state pension; certain other periods that are connected with service can also be regarded as equivalent to the period of service for eligibility to the said pension; when establishing this legal regulation and having regard to the Constitution, the legislature has wide discretion: taking into account the relevant circumstances, it may, among others, also establish the legal regulation (which may have certain particularities) governing the calculation of the period of service of officials of separate statutory state institutions that is necessary for eligibility to the state pension of officials and servicemen, as well as the legal regulation of making other periods equivalent to the said period of service (rulings of 6 May 2015 and 25 January 2017).

14.4. The Constitutional Court, taking account of the concept of the state pensions of officials and servicemen, has noted more than once that, once such a state pension is established by means of a law, the granting and receipt of this pension must specifically be related to service performed by a person to the State of Lithuania (inter alia, the rulings of 22 February 2013, 6 May 2015, and 25 January 2017); according to the Constitution, service performed by a person to the State of Lithuania is a necessary condition to receive the state pension of officials and servicemen of the Republic of Lithuania (decision (no KT14-S7/2016) of 12 May 2016 and the decision (no KT15-S8/2016) of 12 May 2016).

In the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 22 February 2013, it is emphasised that service to another state, inter alia, the USSR (including the Lithuanian SSR), may not be considered service to the State of Lithuania; however, according to the Constitution, taking account of the significant circumstances, the legislature has the discretion to establish such a legal regulation of granting the state pensions of officials and servicemen under which the period of service to another state may be regarded as equivalent to a certain part of the period of service to the State of Lithuania required for granting that pension in cases where service to another state was performed under the circumstances when it was objectively impossible to perform service to the State of Lithuania (inter alia, in the period prior to the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania on 11 March 1990, during which the only institutions of the State of Lithuania were the Republic of Lithuania’s diplomatic missions and consular posts abroad); the legislature may not establish such a legal regulation under which the state pensions of officials and servicemen would be granted, inter alia, to persons who did not serve the State of Lithuania.

15. The Constitutional Court has also stated that, after the state pension of officials and servicemen has been established by law, Article 52 of the Constitution implies a duty for the legislature to establish such a legal regulation of the said pension that would be compatible with the principle of the equality of the rights of persons, which is consolidated in Article 29 of the Constitution (rulings of 22 February 2013 and 25 January 2017); in determining, among others, the persons who are granted and paid the state pension of officials and servicemen, the grounds and conditions for granting and paying it, as well as the amounts of that pension, the legislature must observe the constitutional principle of the equality of all persons (ruling of 25 September 2007), and must pay regard to the requirement, arising from Article 29 of the Constitution, that officials and servicemen whose legal situation is the same, in cases where between them there are no differences of such a nature and to such an extent that would objectively justify the unequal treatment of such officials and servicemen, must be treated in the same way (rulings of 24 December 2008 and 25 January 2016).

In the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, it has been repeatedly held that a violation of the constitutional principle of the equality of the rights of persons is, at the same time, a violation of the constitutional imperatives of justice and harmonious society, and, thus, also a violation of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

16. The Constitutional Court has also noted that regard must be paid to the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law when interpreting Article 52 of the Constitution (rulings of 3 December 2003 and 20 June 2016).

16.1. Legal certainty, legal security, and the protection of legitimate expectations are inseparable elements of the principle of a state under the rule of law; these constitutional principles imply the duty of the state to protect the rights of persons, to respect legitimate interests and legitimate expectations, and to fulfil the obligations undertaken to the person; if legal certainty, legal security, or the protection of legitimate expectations of persons were not ensured, the confidence of persons in the state and law would not be ensured, either (inter alia, the rulings of 4 March 2003, 15 February 2013, and 19 November 2015); persons have the right to reasonably expect that their rights acquired under valid laws or other legal acts that are not in conflict with the Constitution will be retained for the established period of time and that they will be able to exercise those rights in reality (inter alia, the rulings of 4 March 2003, 15 February 2013, and 2 February 2016).

16.2. The duty of the state to guarantee its citizens the right to receive social assistance in cases provided for by law, which is consolidated in Article 52 of the Constitution, implies the requirement for the legislature to establish such a legal regulation of the state pension of officials and servicemen (once such a pension is provided for by law) that would take account of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, inter alia, the imperatives of justice, the protection of legitimate expectations, and legal certainty (ruling of 20 June 2016); when specifying the persons who are granted and paid the state pension of officials and servicemen, the grounds and conditions for granting and paying the state pension of officials and servicemen, and the amounts of that pension, the legislature is bound by the constitutional imperative of social harmony and the principles of justice, reasonableness, and proportionality (inter alia, the rulings of 3 December 2003 and 24 December 2008); the grant and payment of a state pension should not become a privilege; if, when establishing, by means of a law, inter alia, the grounds for such pension provision, the persons who are granted and paid those pensions, as well as the conditions for granting and paying the pensions, the legislature failed to have regard to the Constitution (for example, if the legislature granted state pensions to persons who may not be granted such pensions), then such pension provision could not be defended under the Constitution (inter alia, the rulings of 3 December 2003, 26 November 2015, and 26 January 2016).

17. As mentioned before, in the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 22 February 2013, it is stressed that, under the Constitution, service to another state, inter alia, the USSR (including the Lithuanian SSR), may not be considered service to the State of Lithuania.

In the context of this constitutional justice case, it should be noted that, according to the Constitution, inter alia, Article 52 thereof, and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the legislature, having wide discretion to establish a legal regulation governing the grant of the state pensions of officials and servicemen, inter alia, to define the period of service required for the granting of that state pension, may not establish, when taking into account the purpose of the state pension of officials and servicemen, that the period of service to another state (inter alia, the USSR), when it was objectively possible to serve the State of Lithuania, may be regarded as the period required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen; such pension provision could not be defended under the Constitution.

III

The assessment of the constitutionality of point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials

18. It has been mentioned that, in this constitutional justice case, the Constitutional Court investigates whether point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, insofar as, under that point, the actual period of service of officials and servicemen in the military units of the USSR, the units of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, or other units of the USSR after 11 March 1990 in cases where a person performed such service, according to the petitioner, on instruction or assignment given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania and thus performed functions important to the Republic of Lithuania, acted in the interests of the Republic of Lithuania and for the benefit of the Republic of Lithuania, is not regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, was in conflict with Articles 29 and 52 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

19. According to the petitioner, the impugned legal regulation violated the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, because the actual period of service by persons in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR after 11 March 1990 is not regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen only due to the fact that the persons concerned did not meet the condition to be conscripted for forced compulsory military service, although they performed service in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR after 11 March 1990, according to the petitioner, on instruction or assignment given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania and, during that service, they performed functions important to the Republic of Lithuania, acted in the interests of the Republic of Lithuania and, thus, were loyal to the State of Lithuania. In the opinion of the petitioner, such persons should be regarded as the persons specified in point 1 of paragraph 3 (wording of 7 May 2020) of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, where the period of service of such persons after 11 March 1990 in the internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs that carried out the security and control of the penitentiary establishments that operated in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania is included in the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen.

According to the petitioner, persons who served in the military units of the USSR, the units of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, or other units of the USSR, who acted in the interests of the Republic of Lithuania and performed functions important to the Republic of Lithuania, as well as persons who served in corrective labour establishments and remand prisons, were loyal to the State of Lithuania; therefore, they had the reasonable expectation that this period of their service would be included in the calculation of the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen.

20. In this ruling of the Constitutional Court, it has been mentioned that:

according to Article 52 of the Constitution, the discretion of the legislature in establishing the granting of state pensions is broader than in regulating other pensions; the conditions for granting state pensions may be very varied and may depend, inter alia, on the particularities of specific service; the purpose of the state pension of officials and servicemen is, inter alia, to compensate for difficult, responsible, and often risk-involving and dangerous service performed by a person to the state; the receipt of those pensions is related to the particular status of a certain person (his/her service, merit, or other circumstances on which the granting of a state pension depends);

according to Article 52 of the Constitution, when regulating the granting of the state pensions of officials and servicemen, the legislature must define, among others, the period of service required for eligibility to this state pension; according to the Constitution, the legislature has the discretion, taking account of the significant circumstances, to establish such a legal regulation of granting the state pensions of officials and servicemen under which the period of service to another state may be regarded as equivalent to a certain part of the period of service to the State of Lithuania required for granting that pension in cases where service to another state was performed under the circumstances when it was objectively impossible to perform service to the State of Lithuania;

according to the Constitution, inter alia, Article 52 thereof, and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the legislature may not establish that the period of service to another state (inter alia, the USSR), when it was objectively possible to serve the State of Lithuania, may be regarded as the period required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen;

Article 52 of the Constitution implies the duty for the legislature to establish such a legal regulation governing the state pension of officials and servicemen that would be compatible with the principle of the equality of the rights of persons, which is consolidated in Article 29 of the Constitution; in determining, among others, the persons who are granted and paid the state pension of officials and servicemen, the grounds and conditions for granting and paying it, as well as the amounts of that pension, the legislature must pay regard to the requirement, arising from Article 29 of the Constitution, that officials and servicemen whose legal situation is the same, in cases where between them there are no differences of such a nature and to such an extent that would objectively justify the unequal treatment of such officials and servicemen, must be treated in the same way;

the duty of the state to guarantee its citizens the right to receive social assistance in cases provided for by law, which is laid down in Article 52 of the Constitution, implies the requirement for the legislature to establish such a legal regulation of the state pension of officials and servicemen (once such a pension is provided for by law) that would take account of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, inter alia, the imperatives of justice, the protection of legitimate expectations, and legal certainty.

21. It has also been mentioned that, according to the impugned legal regulation, laid down in point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, after the actual time of military service until 11 March 1990 in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR, thus, also in the State Security Committee, became to be regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, the actual period of such service after 11 March 1990 was not regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, even if the person performed such service possibly on instruction given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania.

21.1. As mentioned in this ruling of the Constitutional Court, the legal regulation enshrined in point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, governing equating the actual period of forced compulsory military service after 11 March 1990 by persons conscripted by the USSR military commissariats functioning in Lithuania with the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, was established taking into account the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 22 February 2013, which recognised, inter alia, that point 1 of paragraph 3 (wording of 2 October 2012) of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, insofar as, having prescribed that, with respect to the persons specified in that point the actual period of forced military service in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service (except service in extermination squads and battalions) of the USSR prior to 11 March 1990 is included into the period of service necessary in order to grant the state pension of officials and servicemen, it did not prescribe that the period of such service after 11 March 1990 is included in the period of service necessary in order to grant that pension to the persons who became citizens of the Republic of Lithuania after they had made a choice regarding citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to their conscription to military service in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR, or at the time of such military service, had been in conflict with the Constitution.

21.2. It has also been mentioned that, in its ruling of 20 June 2016, the Constitutional Court recognised that the legal regulation consolidated in point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen had been in conflict with the Constitution, insofar as, under that legal regulation, the actual period of service in the units of internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs while carrying out the functions of the security and control of the corrective labour establishments and remand prisons operating in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, if it had been performed from 11 March 1990 until the security and control of the said establishments had been brought under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Lithuania was not regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen; it was also noted in the same ruling that there are no constitutional grounds that would enable the actual period of service after 11 March 1990 in other units of the internal troops or internal affairs units of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, as well as in the armed forces, border guard service, customs, security, or other systems of service of the USSR, to be regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen (with the exception of the respective actual period of forced compulsory military service in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR after 11 March 1990).

In the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 20 June 2016, it was also held that service in the units of the internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs may not be considered service to the State of Lithuania and the period of service in those units after 11 March 1990 should not be regarded as the period during which it was objectively impossible to perform service to the State of Lithuania (except for the circumstances specified in that ruling, which are applicable to service in the units of internal troops of the USSR Ministry of the Internal Affairs that carried out the security and control of the correctional labour establishments and remand prisons operating in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania).

22. When deciding whether point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, to the extent specified by the petitioner, was in conflict with the Constitution, it should be noted that, contrary to what is maintained by the petitioner, the actual period of service performed possibly on instruction given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania and while acting in the interests of the Republic of Lithuania after 11 March 1990 in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, and other systems of service of the USSR that had operated in Lithuania may not be regarded as forced compulsory military service in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR after 11 March 1990, because service performed possibly on instruction given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania after 11 March 1990 in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, or other systems of service of the USSR that operated in Lithuania does not in itself imply that there are grounds for stating that coercion by the institutions or officials of another state (in this case, the USSR) was used against such persons and that they were persecuted or forced to remain in service; in the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 22 February 2013, it was found that such coercive actions by the USSR institutions were used against conscript-age persons, forcing them to serve in the USSR armed forces after 11 March 1990.

At the same time, it should be noted that the actual service in the units of the armed forces of the USSR, the units of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, or other units of the USSR after 11 March 1990, inter alia, in the State Security Committee, where a person performed such service possibly on instruction given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania and thus acted in the interests of the Republic of Lithuania, may not be regarded as service performed by the officials of the units subordinate to the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs who carried out the security and control of the corrective labour establishments and remand prisons operating in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania because of the fact that, as stated in the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 20 June 2016, differently from the case of most other units formerly subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR, on 11 March 1990, the Republic of Lithuania was objectively unable to bring under its jurisdiction the corrective labour establishments and remand prisons operating in its territory, the security and control of these institutions was brought by the Republic of Lithuania under its jurisdiction gradually; therefore, the persons who served there could not immediately switch to service to the Republic of Lithuania; in addition, by carrying out the functions of control and security in the corrective labour establishments and remand prisons, the officials of the said units contributed to public security and the maintenance of public order in the Republic of Lithuania. In this context, it should be noted that, as mentioned above, the State Security Department under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania was established by means of the government resolution (No 77) of 26 March 1990 on the establishment of the State Security Department under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania and the appointment of its Director General shortly after the restoration of Lithuania’s independence.

22.1. Thus, on the one hand, the persons who performed service possibly on instruction given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania after 11 March 1990 in the military units of the USSR, the units of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, or other units of the USSR, and, on the other hand, the persons who were at that time forcibly taken into military service in the armed forces, border guard service, internal affairs system, and other systems of service of the USSR or who performed service in the corrective labour establishments and remand prisons functioning in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, because it was objectively impossible to serve the State of Lithuania, were in different legal situations. Thus, the unequal treatment of the groups of the above-mentioned persons, by establishing, in point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, which periods of service to another state, inter alia, the USSR, may be regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, is objectively justifiable under the Constitution.

22.2. It has also been mentioned that, by means of the provisional legal regulation, which was in force until 31 December 1994, established by the Government in relation to the state pensions of officials and servicemen, the Republic of Lithuania did not commit itself to include the period served in the armed forces, border guard service, or internal affairs system of the USSR after 11 March 1990 in the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen. It has also been mentioned that, in the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 20 June 2016, it was held that service in the units of the internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs may not be considered service to the State of Lithuania and the period of service in those units after 11 March 1990 should not be regarded as the period during which it was objectively impossible to perform service to the State of Lithuania.

Thus, it should be noted that the persons who performed service possibly on instruction given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania after 11 March 1990 in the military units of the USSR, the units of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, or other units of the USSR, when it was objectively possible to serve the State of Lithuania in the institutions controlled by the State of Lithuania, could not have the legitimate expectations that this period would be included in the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen.

22.3. Consequently, it should be held that the legislature, exercising its wide discretion to define, in point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, inter alia, to establish which periods of service to another state may be regarded as equivalent to the period of service required for granting that pension, did not violate the requirement, arising from the Constitution, inter alia, Articles 29 and 52 thereof, to observe the constitutional principle of the equality of all persons when establishing the conditions for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, nor did it violate the requirement not to establish that the period of service to another state (inter alia, the USSR) when it was objectively possible to serve the State of Lithuania would be regarded as equivalent to the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen. It should also be held that the impugned legal regulation, consolidated in point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, did not violate the imperatives of justice, the protection of legitimate expectations, and legal certainty, arising from the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

23. In the light of the foregoing, the conclusion should be drawn that point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, insofar as, under that point, the actual period of service of officials and servicemen in the military units of the USSR, the units of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, or other units of the USSR after 11 March 1990 in cases where a person performed such service possibly on instruction given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania is not regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, was not in conflict with Articles 29 and 52 of the Constitution.

Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 53, 531, 54, 55, and 56 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania gives the following

ruling:

To recognise that point 1 (wording of 25 June 2015; the Register of Legal Acts, 01-07-2015, No 10600) of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, insofar as, under that point, the actual period of service of officials and servicemen in the military units of the USSR, the units of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, or other units of the USSR after 11 March 1990 in cases where a person performed such service possibly on instruction given by the officials of the Republic of Lithuania is not regarded as the period of service required for granting the state pension of officials and servicemen, was not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

This ruling of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.

Justices of the Constitutional Court: Elvyra Baltutytė
                                                                      Vytautas Greičius
                                                                      Danutė Jočienė
                                                                      Giedrė Lastauskienė
                                                                      Vytautas Mizaras
                                                                      Algis Norkūnas
                                                                      Daiva Petrylaitė
                                                                      Janina Stripeikienė