Case No. 6/95
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
On the compliance of the provision “by applying coefficient 10” of the Resolution of the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 562) “On the Indexation of People’s Savings” of 23
July 1993 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
26 June 1996, Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the justices of the
Constitutional Court: Egidijus Jarašiūnas, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Augustinas
Normantas, Vladas Pavilonis, Jonas Prapiestis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius, Teodora
Staugaitienė, and Juozas Žilys
The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė
Seimas member Gediminas Vagnorius and Stasys Vėlyvis, an Associate Professor, PhD,
acting as the representatives of a group of members the Seimas, the petitioner
Lina Gasiūnaitė, Head of the Division of Financial Institutions of the Ministry of Finance,
and Algirdas Cicėnas, Deputy Director of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Justice, acting as
the representatives of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article
102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing, on 30 May 1996, considered
case No. 6/95 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by a group of members of the
Seimas, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the provision “by applying
coefficient 10” of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 562) “On the
Indexation of People’s Savings” of 23 July 1993 is in compliance with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article
2
23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
On 23 July 1993, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 562) “On the Indexation of
People’s Savings” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1993, Nos. 32-756, 65-1236; 1994, No. 761438; 1995, No. 3-41; hereinafter referred to as the impugned government resolution), Item 1
whereof establishes that state banks and State Insurance Office shall index by applying coefficient
10 the savings of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as those of persons who permanently
live in the Republic of Lithuania, and those of rehabilitated persons who were deported from
Lithuania and now live abroad.
When the case was being prepared to the hearing of the Constitutional Court, as well as
during the judicial investigation, the representatives of the petitioner grounded their request with the
following arguments:
1. The impugned government resolution has established that the savings and insurance
payments of the people of Lithuania which were accumulated until 26 February 1991 shall be
indexed by applying coefficient 10, whilst this means that people’s deposits with their initial
(actual) value are, in essence, confiscated, i.e., private property which was accumulated in the form
of deposits is practically seized for no consideration.
2. There were more than 7 milliard roubles of the deposits of the people of Lithuania
accumulated in savings banks and State insurance offices during the period of Soviet occupation.
The savings banks did not dispose of these savings of the people, they merely received deposits and
controlled their accounting. Soviet government would take people’s deposits in centralised manner
as budgetary incomes and would utilise them through the budget for the purpose of various needs of
the State.
The representatives of the petitioner noted that the alienated funds did not disappear: they
were invested into various branches of economy, thus, in Lithuania, about one third of state property
was created which, in essence, belongs to individual persons, i.e., to all people, and not to the State
because the funds of the aforesaid persons which were accumulated in savings banks in the form of
deposits were materialised in state property that was created from them.
3. The representatives of the petitioner maintained that inflation did not destroy people’s
deposits because deposits as credit resources in fact existed neither in 1990, nor later: they were
converted into the property of state enterprises and organisations. Since there were not any people’s
deposits in the Savings Bank (they had been utilised by Soviet government), thus, now it is possible
3
to compensate them by selling a corresponding share of state property, by indexing the deposits with
the inflation coefficient, and thereby the initial value of the deposits could be restored.
On the grounds of the data of the Department of Statistics, the representatives of the
petitioner indicated that the inflation coefficient was 113.46% from 1 March 1991 until 1 July 1993,
therefore, they made the conclusion that people’s savings in the form of deposits and insurance
payments which were indicated in Item 1 of the impugned government resolution should have been
indexed “by applying coefficient 113.46, and not coefficient 10”.
4. The representatives of the petitioner pointed out that, according to Articles 109 and 1091
of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, people’s deposits and other funds which could be
identified with them and which are held in banks and other credit offices shall belong to these
people by the right of private ownership. Besides, it is established in Paragraph 5 of Article 471 of
the said code that “state shall guarantee security and payment of the funds of natural persons which
are held in the accounts of state, state-stock or other state credit offices on the first demand of the
person”.
The decisions of the Seimas and the Government also point out that the possessions of the
State guarantee that people’s deposits will not be lost.
5. The representatives of the petitioner, on the grounds of the provisions “property shall be
inviolable” and “property may only be seized for the needs of society according to the procedure
established by law and must be adequately compensated for” of Article 23 of the Constitution,
indicated that these provisions are violated by the impugned government resolution as: 1) by not
returning the deposits to people, the constitutional principle of inviolability of property is violated;
2) the savings are seized even though there exist no grounds indicated in Article 471 of the Civil
Code to do so; 3) the impugned government resolution does not indicate for what needs of society
people’s savings are seized; 4) the provision “must be adequately compensated for” is violated as
90% of people’s deposits are seized at no cost.
6. The representatives of the petitioner alleged: “The Government had (and has now) the
possibility of restoring people’s savings by means of the existing state property and had to index
people’s savings according to coefficients” which correspond the officially stated inflation
indicators. The representatives of the petitioner indicated that, according to the data of the
Department of Statistics, on 1 January 1994 there was non-privatised property for 1.83 milliard litas,
whereas if this property were indexed by coefficient 10 as established in the impugned government
resolution, its value would be 18.3 milliard litas. Approximately 8 milliard litas are needed to index
the deposits in their actual value.
In the opinion of the representatives of the petitioner, there exists non-privatised property of
4
enterprises for 10.5 milliard litas, i.e. this is more than needed to compensate the deposits in their
actual value. Besides, they noted that the indexation coefficients established in the impugned
government resolution are several times lower than they ought to be pursuant to the actual index of
prices, therefore, if the existing non-privatised state property were indexed fairly, i.e., according to
the indicators stated officially by the Department of Statistics, there would be much more state
property than required to compensate people’s devaluated deposits in their actual value.
II
The representatives of the Government, the party concerned, presented the following
counter-arguments when the case was being prepared for the Constitutional Court hearing, as well
as during the judicial investigation.
1. The impugned government resolution to index people’s deposits accumulated until 26
February 1991 in state banks, as well as their insurance payments in the State Insurance Office, by
applying coefficient 10 was adopted taking account of actual financial possibilities of accumulating
the required funds to pay the compensations in cash but not in state property. It was established by
the calculations of the Savings Bank of Lithuania, the Lithuanian Bank of Agriculture, the State
Commercial Bank and the State Insurance Office that the total sum of people’s deposits and
insurance payments by applying coefficient 10 is 539.8 million litas and that it must be paid during
the period of 11 years.
The Seimas by its Resolution (No. 1-338) “On the Indexation of People’s Savings” of 15
December 1993 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1993, No. 71-1329) approved of coefficient 10
which was established in the impugned government resolution and recognised that the savings, the
added interests and calculated by the established manner compensations for savings are the internal
loan of the State of the Republic of Lithuania to people. Moreover, this resolution recommended the
Government to establish the Fund of Restoration and Compensation of Savings in which funds
would be accumulated to repay the established compensations.
2. By its Resolution (No. 34) “On the Restoration of People’s Savings and on Compensation
Payments in 1994” 21 February 1994 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 7-115), the
Government established the Fund of Restoration and Compensation of Savings the regulations
whereof were approved by the Seimas by its Resolution “On the Approval of the Regulations of the
Fund of the Restoration and Compensation of Savings” of 26 April 1994 (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 1994, No. 33-589). When implementing the aforesaid resolutions, 35.78 million litas were
transferred from the said fund for compensation payments until 17 July 1995, whereas 163.5 million
litas were assigned to pay compensations for the years of 1993–1994.
3. The representatives of the party concerned refuted the allegation of the representatives of
5
the petitioner that about one third of state property was created out of the seized savings of people.
In their opinion, such an allegation is not grounded on any objective calculations because it is
impossible to do so. As is known, people’s savings were used in centralised manner as budget
income to finance various projects in the former republics of the Soviet Union. Therefore, it is
impossible to establish what objects and in what republics of the former Soviet Union were built for
the Lithuanian people’s seized savings accumulated in the savings banks.
4. The representatives of the party concerned pointed out that, by its Resolution (No. 554)
“On the Internal Loan of the State of Lithuania, as Well as the Share of State Stock Capital in the
Lithuanian Savings Bank” of 19 April 1995 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1995, No. 34-843),
the Government commissioned the Ministry of Finance to sign an agreement with the Savings Bank
concerning the internal loan of the State of Lithuania which appeared due to the seized savings by
the Central Bank of the former USSR as well as the necessity to return the calculated and charged to
accounts interests. The agreement between the Government and the Savings Bank was signed on 15
May 1995.
In the opinion of the representatives of the party concerned, not only the devalued savings of
depositors but also those of all entities of economy, as well as other property, should be
compensated due to inflation. The funds accumulated in the Savings Bank until 26 January 1991
were in fact seized by the former Soviet Union and, until now, were not returned to Lithuania. The
agreement regarding the returning of the seized savings of people has not been signed with Russian
Federation yet.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1.1. On 11 March 1990, the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania passed the Law
“On the Provisional Basic Law of the Republic of Lithuania”. It confirmed the Provisional Basic
Law of the Republic of Lithuania by Article 2 of the said law, whereas by Article 3 of the said law it
established that such laws and other legal acts which had been in force until then shall be valid in
the Republic of Lithuania which are in compliance with the Provisional Basic Law of the Republic
of Lithuania. Thus, upon the reinstatement of the Independent State of Lithuania, for some time
laws which had been in force until then, among them those regulating the legal status of people’s
savings in savings banks, were valid in the legal system of Lithuania.
It is established in Article 93 of the Provisional Basic Law of the Republic of Lithuania that
the “the Government shall implement executive power in the Republic of Lithuania”, whereas
Article 100 provides that the composition of the Government, its jurisdiction and principles of
activity shall be established by the Law on the Government. The Supreme Council passed the Law
6
on the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on 22 March 1990 (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 1990, No. 11-330; hereinafter in the ruling referred to as the Law on the Government). It is
established in Item 1 of Article 2 of the said law that the Government shall take concern for
“preservation and augmentation of the property of the Republic, guarantee all property subjects
freedom of economic activity, the variety of property forms, as well as their equality”, whereas in
Article 15 it is stipulated that “pursuant to its jurisdiction, the Government shall take decisions
regarding implementation of state policy in the spheres of money circulation and money”.
1.2. During the period of Soviet occupation, people’s savings in the form of deposits were
accumulated in the state labour savings banks of the USSR (hereinafter in the ruling referred to as
the savings banks). The savings banks constituted part of a unified, centralised, Union system of
credit offices which was subordinate to the State Bank of the USSR. The activity of savings banks
was regulated by the USSR laws, substatutory normative legal acts, directions and instructions of
the State Bank of the USSR, as well as regulations of savings banks.
The relations which appeared between savings banks and people due to the held deposits and
the procedure of their utilisation were regulated by “The Regulations of State Labour Savings Banks
of the USSR” (hereinafter in the ruling referred to as the Regulations) that were approved by the 11
July 1977 resolution No. 623 of the Soviet of Ministers of the USSR. The Regulations indicated that
one of the main objectives of the savings banks is to provide people with an opportunity to preserve
and accumulate savings in the savings banks, and to utilise the savings in the interests of economy.
The savings of people of Lithuania which had been accumulated in the savings banks and other
credit offices would be transferred in centralised manner to the budget of the Soviet Union.
It was established in Item 5 of the Regulations that the security and privacy of savings or
other valuable items as well as their payment on the first demand of the depositor shall be
guaranteed by the state. It was provided for in Item 18 of the said Regulations that the depositor was
entitled to dispose of his deposit.
2. Upon the reinstatement of the Independent State of Lithuania, the Soviet Union undertook
military, political, and economic actions against Lithuania. Among them, actual seizure of savings
of people of Lithuania which were accumulated in the savings banks was used as a means of
economic and financial pressure.
In such a situation, on 28 April 1990, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 133)
“Concerning the Measures to Stabilise the Activity of Lithuanian Economy as Well as Provision to
People under the Situation of the Economic Blockade”, as well as the Resolution (No. 134)
“Regarding Anti-blockade Measures to Regulate Money Circulation and to Manage Account
Settling”. These resolutions attempted to ensure the functioning of national economy by the
7
foreseen economic measures. Item 1 of resolution No. 134 commissioned banks of the Republic of
Lithuania, self-government bodies of cities and districts, to induce, in every way possible,
concentration of people’s savings into deposits in the offices of the Lithuanian Savings Bank, as
well as those of other banks. It was established that the Republic of Lithuania guarantees with its
property that people’s deposits will not be lost. That corresponded the norm of Article 471 of the
Civil Code that “the State shall guarantee privacy, security and payment of deposits on the first
demand of the depositor”. This norm is valid at present, too.
The guaranty of the Government that “deposits will not be lost”, concerned not only the
deposits which were transferred to the Savings Bank or other banks’ offices already after resolution
No. 134 of 28 April 1990 had been adopted but also those which had been put into the savings
banks during the period of occupation and which could not be taken back by people as in fact the
Soviet government seized them. Such a commitment was confirmed by the Government Resolution
(No. 106) “On the Protection of People’s Savings as Well as Insurance Payments from the
Devaluation Related with the Rise of Prices on This Occasion” of 28 March 1991. Item 1 of this
resolution prescribed: “50% of deposits’ value shall be compensated to people of the Republic of
Lithuania provided that the sum of 5000 roubles shall not be exceeded for one person, whereas the
sum up to 7000 roubles shall not be exceeded for former political prisoners and deportees.” In like
manner, and with the same sums, the devaluation of saved payments by life and pension insurance
was compensated. The devaluation of deposits, as well as that of payments of life and pension
insurance, was compensated according to the situation of 26 February 1991 by allocating
corresponding compensation to acquire some of state property subject to privatisation.
The fact that people’s deposits, accumulated until 26 February 1991 and after, would not be
lost and be exchanged into the national currency on favourable conditions was also confirmed by
the Government Resolution (No. 67) “On Inducing People to Sell Livestock Products to the State
During Winter and Spring Months” of 31 January 1992. It was established in Item 2 of Paragraph 1
of this resolution that a favourable rate of exchange into the national currency shall be applied to the
means transferred either into individual deposit or individual farmers’ clearing accounts (by
equating these means to the inventoried 26 February 1991 deposits with the rate 1 to 5 according to
the prices’ rise index).
It should be noted that in the aforementioned resolutions the commitment of the Government
is expressed in general statements (“the deposits will not be lost”, “the deposits will not be lost and
be exchanged into the national currency on favourable conditions”, etc.) but it was not indicated,
however, on the grounds of which particular criteria, in what size, by what manner and during what
time period people’s deposits accumulated in the Savings Bank or other credit offices will be
8
compensated.
On 5 November 1991, the Supreme Council passed the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on
Issuing Currency Paragraph 3 of Article 3 whereof stipulated that “the Government of the Republic
of Lithuania, until the complete withdrawal of coupons from circulation, shall establish the size and
procedure of the compensation of the devalued savings of people possessed until 26 February 1991
and held in the Lithuanian Savings Bank”. Thus, this law once again confirmed the right of the
Government to establish the size of the devalued deposits and the procedure of their payment
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1991, No. 33-896; 1993, Nos. 12-297, 27-622).
From the mentioned above, as well as pursuant to the Provisional Basic Law of the Republic
of Lithuania, the Law on the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (adopted in 1990), the
Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Issuing Currency and other legal acts, the conclusion should be
made that the Government was entitled to establish the size of the compensation and the procedure
of its payment.
3.1. The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania was adopted in the referendum on 25
October 1992. It is established in Article 128 of the Constitution that decisions concerning state
loans and other basic property liabilities of the State shall be adopted by the Seimas on the
recommendation of the Government.
Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Procedure for the Enforcement of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania stipulates that “laws, other legal acts, or parts thereof
which were in effect on the territory of the Republic of Lithuania prior to the adoption of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, shall be effective provided they do not contradict the
Constitution and this Law, and shall remain effective until they are either declared null and void or
co-ordinated with the provisions of the Constitution”.
This means that the legal acts of the Supreme Council and the Government whereby it was
pledged to compensate the deposits of people of Lithuania and which were passed prior to the
adoption of the Constitution are also mandatory for the institutions of authority and governance after
the Constitution went into effect.
The permanence of these commitments is confirmed by subsequently adopted legal acts by
the Seimas and the Government, too.
The Seimas recognised in Item 2 of its Resolution (No. 1-338) “On the Indexation of
People’s Savings” of 15 December 1993 that “people’s deposits accumulated until 1 January 1991,
as well as the calculated interests for the deposits, and the compensations of people’s savings and
insurance payments calculated in the manner prescribed in Item 1 of this Resolution shall be internal
loan of the State of the Republic of Lithuania to people”. The Seimas, by this resolution, while
9
fulfilling the provision of Article 128 of the Constitution, implemented the right conferred to it and
recognised that compensation for people’s savings and insurance payments is internal loan of the
State of the Republic of Lithuania to people (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1993, No. 71-1329).
It was established in the said resolution that by assessing financial capacity of the State the
Seimas took the decision to compensate people’s savings in 1994 according to the then in effect
government resolutions (No. 562 adopted on 23 July 1993, and No. 834 adopted on 12 November
1993).
On 23 July 1993, while following the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Issuing Currency
which was passed by the Supreme Council on 5 November 1991 and fulfilling the Litas
Committee’s Resolution “On Issuing the National Currency and Withdrawing Temporary
Currency—Coupons—from Circulation” of 14 June 1993, the Government adopted its Resolution
No. (562) “On the Indexation of People’s Savings”. In the preamble of the aforesaid resolution it
was indicated that the Government takes into consideration the grave economic and financial
situation of the Republic of Lithuania, therefore, in Item 1 it was provided that state banks and the
State Insurance Office shall index by applying coefficient 10 the savings of citizens of the Republic
of Lithuania, as well as those of persons who permanently live in the Republic of Lithuania, and
those of rehabilitated persons who were exiled from Lithuania and now live abroad.
Items 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 of the impugned government resolution established the
compensation procedure of people’s accumulated savings. The said items established the dates
taking account of which newly consigned deposits or the remainder subject to compensation of prior
consigned deposits had to be calculated.
It was established in Item 2 of this resolution that people’s deposits accumulated in state
banks until 1 June 1992, shall be indexed by applying coefficient 2 pursuant to the procedure
provided for in the Government Resolution (No. 67) “On Inducing People to Sell Livestock
Products to the State During Winter and Spring Months” of 31 January 1992 provided that the
remainder of these deposits had not changed until 24 June 1993. Furthermore, it was indicated that
the funds received for sold farm products until 1 June 1992 and which were included into people’s
accounts overdue shall be indexed by applying coefficient 2 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
1992, No. 10-270; 1993, No. 65-1236).
Thus, the Seimas in fact agreed that the Government by its resolutions in different periods of
time established different size of savings’ compensation.
3.2. When implementing the Seimas Resolution “On the Indexation of People’s Savings” of
15 December 1993, the Government adopted its Resolution (No. 34) “On the Restoration of
People’s Savings and on Compensation Payments in 1994” of 21 January 1994. It was provided for
10
in Item 1 of this resolution to form a particular Fund of Restoration and Compensation of Savings.
Moreover, it was recognised in Item 3 of the aforementioned resolution that the internal loan of the
State of the Republic of Lithuania to the Lithuanian Savings Bank shall comprise of people’s
deposits accumulated in the bank until 1 January 1991 and seized by the former Soviet Union at the
same time, whereas in Item 3.3 the provision of resolution No. 562 of 23 July 1993 was reiterated
that compensations to people for accumulated deposits and insurance payments shall be calculated
by applying indexation coefficient 10.
By its Resolution “On the Approval of the Regulations of the Fund of the Restoration and
Compensation of Savings” of 26 April 1994, the Seimas approved the Regulations of the Fund of
the Restoration and Compensation of Savings following which the funds are accumulated to
compensate people’s deposits. It is indicated in Paragraph 2 of the said resolution that one of the
sources of forming the Fund of Restoration and Compensation of Savings is compensations for the
seized deposits of the Central Savings Bank of the former USSR acquired upon signing a
corresponding agreement with Russian Federation. Besides, on 15 May 1995, the Government and
the Lithuanian Savings Bank signed an agreement where the Government committed itself to cover
the loan to this bank for the loans being returned to people during the period of 10 years.
Thus, upon adoption of the Constitution, the State, however, did not decline its initial
commitments to compensate people their deposits even though the legally grounded scope of
deposits’ protection was not established.
4. The representatives of the petitioner, on the grounds of the provision “property shall be
inviolable” of Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, as well as that of Paragraph 3 which
stipulates “property may only be seized for the needs of society according to the procedure
established by law and must be adequately compensated for” alleged that the impugned government
resolution violates property rights of the depositors.
It is established in Paragraph 1 of Article 1091 of the Civil Code that the object of private
ownership may be any property without limiting its size provided that this code and other laws do
not prohibit holding this property in accordance with the right to private ownership.
According to the doctrine of law, the right of claim is a type of property. Therefore, the right
of claim, as well as any other property, is the object of private ownership. Thus, the object of the
right of the depositor to ownership is the right of claim, whereas the object of the right of tangible
property is particularised property. The owner’s property rights are protected to the same extent
irrespective of the object of the right to private ownership providing the law does not establish any
exceptions. In view of what has been mentioned above, the conclusion should be made that the
subjective rights of claim of the owner must be protected along with his rights to tangible property
11
following the principles of protection developed in property law.
The representatives of the petitioner interpreted the notions “the State guarantees that
people’s deposits will not be lost”, “the State ensures the security of deposits” as the commitment of
the State to preserve the value of the deposits.
The notion “security of deposits” which is used in legal acts is a juridical notion which is
interpreted as safekeeping deposits in credit offices which are responsible for the preservation of the
deposits’ nominal value and which guarantee their payment on the first demand of the depositor
with the interest established by law or agreement of the parties.
“The preservation of value of the deposits” is interpreted as an economic category.
Devaluation of deposits, as a rule, is caused by objective economic developments (as well as
inflation) which are not dependent upon the will of the credit office that keeps people’s deposits.
Thus, the notions “security of deposits” and “the preservation of value of the deposits”
cannot be identified according to the juridical and economic meaning of their content.
Deposits, in part, may be preserved from devaluation by paying interests for them, by
forming individual or joint insurance systems of private banks, etc. However, even though the
deposit insurance system is created for the purpose of deposit protection, as a rule, only the payment
of nominal value sum is guaranteed but not compensation of the losses suffered because of inflation.
The representatives of the petitioner identified insufficient compensation with seizure
(confiscation) of deposits provided for in Paragraph 4 of Article 471 of the Civil Code. However,
this interpretation means the identification of two notions which are different in their legal
characteristics. Paragraph 4 of Article 471 indicates legal grounds in the presence of which deposits
may be exacted or confiscated, i.e., it indicates when exceptions can be made from the principle of
deposits’ security guaranteed by the State. Meanwhile, devaluation of deposits because of inflation
is an economic phenomenon.
5. In view of the arguments set forth, the conclusion should be made that the State must
fulfil its commitments to people and compensate the devaluated deposits. The establishment of the
size of compensation is a prerogative of the Seimas as it is established in Article 128 of the
Constitution that decisions concerning state loans and other basic property liabilities of the State
shall be adopted by the Seimas on the recommendation of the Government. The Constitutional
Court also notes that the Seimas is not bound by previously adopted legal acts, therefore, by taking
account of actual possibilities, it may establish other compensation coefficients of people’s devalued
deposits and insurance payments.
In view of the arguments set forth, the Constitutional Court has made the conclusion that
there are not any sufficient legal arguments to ground as to what size of the indexation coefficient
12
must be held as corresponding the constitutional principle of inviolability of property, therefore, the
provision of the impugned government resolution may not be held as contradicting Article 23 of the
Constitution.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 53,
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 the provision “by applying coefficient 10” of the Resolution of the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 562) “On the Indexation of People’s Savings” of 23
July 1993 is in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
This ruling of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.
The ruling is pronounced in the name of the Republic of Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court:
Egidijus Jarašiūnas
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zigmas Levickis
Augustinas Normantas
Vladas Pavilonis
Jonas Prapiestis
Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius
Teodora Staugaitienė
Juozas Žilys