Nature national instruments
What is the character of the legal instruments adopted at national level to implement Euro-crisis law (constitutional amendment, organic laws, ordinary legislation, etc)?
The Fiscal Compact was mainly implemented by the Constitutional Law on the Implementation of the Fiscal Treaty, which was adopted on 6 November 2014. The peculiarity of the Constitutional Law is that it is not considered to be a part of the Constitution, therefore theoretically the Law still must comply with the Constitution, although it has a higher legal power than an ordinary law. It differs from an ordinary law by the procedure of its adoption (which requires a qualified majority vote, ie more than half of all members of Seimas) and amendment (a majority of at least 3/5 members of Seimas). Art. 69 (3) of the Constitution also requires adopting a separate law providing for a list of constitutional laws (see also question IX.2)
A few amendments were also made to the Law on Fiscal Discipline (also see question II.1). Most significant amendments were made to the Law on Budget Structure by a normal act of Seimas.
The ESM treaty was ratified by law, and implemented by the Government adopting a decision. (see question VIII.6)
Have there been any constitutional amendments in response to the Euro-crisis or related to Euro-crisis law? Or have any amendments been proposed?
No. Prior to ratification of the Fiscal Compact the Department of European Law of the Ministry of Justice issued an advice to Seimas that there was no ground to believe that there could be a conflict between the Fiscal Compact and the Constitution.
The Department reasoned that the Fiscal Compact merely specified in more detail the constitutional principle that it was necessary to balance the expenditure on social needs with the budgetary capacity.
The main focus of the opinion was the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 2002 where the Court had emphasized that the budgetary estimates should ensure a balance between the social needs and the budgetary capacity; that it was an exclusive duty of the Government to draft the budget just like discussing and adopting the budget was an exclusive duty of the Seimas, and that these competences were not transferrable.
With respect to the corrective measures required by the Fiscal Compact Treaty, the Department of European Law did not think that the need to take into consideration the opinion of the European Commission in adjusting the budget in any way contradicted the Constitution. The Department also did not consider that the Fiscal Compact Treaty requirement to appoint an independent fiscal institution affected the exclusive budgetary competence of either the Parliament or the Government.
With respect to the specific Fiscal Treaty rules and the requirement to have a balanced budget the Department reasoned that these could be taken as a part of the principle accepted by the Constitutional Court that the budget needs to be planned in view of the current economic and social status, needs and capacities of the society and the State, the State‘s financial resources and its international obligations.
The department therefore did not think that there were any issues in the Fiscal Compact that could be in conflict with the Constitution, however, as the final conclusion on this issue could only be made by the Constitutional Court, it was preferable to make a reference on this issue.
The Seimas, however, did not feel that the issue was as topical as to warrant a reference: only one speaker, Vytenis Andriukaitis, spoke in favour of this idea, however, clearly it was outside of the parties’ agenda of priorities. Instead, a decision was taken to speed up the ratification procedure. In total the discussions over the Treaty took less than one hour after which it was ratified.
Contrary to the opinion of the European Law Department, a former president of the Constitutional Court and currently a Judge at the European Court of Human Rights prof. dr. Egidijus Kūris had expressed his view publicly that in order to accommodate the implementation of the Fiscal Compact it was necessary to reconsider a number of articles of the Constitution – especially those concerning the composition of the budget and collection of taxes. His view was that a reference to the Constitutional Court was necessary before ratifying the Treaty, as it would enable to identify what, if any, constitutional amendment was needed.
If national constitutional law already contained relevant elements, such as a balanced budget rule or independent budgetary councils, before the crisis that are now part of Euro-crisis law, what is the background of these rules?
The Constitution does not contain explicit provisions touching on the principles provided for by the Fiscal Compact.
However, the Constitutional Court has developed a concept which relates to the principle of a balanced budget. The Court accepts that the constitutional concept of State budget and the principle of responsible governance imply the need to form a realistic budget, and that the projected income and expenditure must correspond to the needs and possibilities of the society and the State. Therefore the Court emphasizes that the Seimas and the Government, when in need to restrict the budgetary expenditure, are under a duty to take into consideration the state functions established in the Constitution, the existing economic and social situation, the needs and possibilities of the society and the State, the available and potential financial resources and state obligations (inter alia, international ones). The Court also accepted the principle requiring balanced assessment of the social needs and the fiscal ability of the State in its ruling concerning the constitutional model of healthcare.
In this jurisprudence the Court further restricted the scope of the State’s ability to downsize the budgetary expenditure to the need to comply with the following principles:
- The salaries of the State servants can be reduced for no longer than one year; the budget of the next year should be adopted in view of the status of the economy. One year after adoption, the decision to reduce the salaries must be reconsidered.
- The principles of the rule of law, equality, justice, proportionality and legitimate interests and legal certainty, social solidarity and other imperatives must be taken into consideration. The social guarantees may be reduced only as an ultima ratio.
- Reduction of the salaries of the State servants and pensions is allowed only if the State is in a severe financial crisis. Upon an official finding that the State is in such a crisis, the Seimas may reduce the salaries and pensions. However, the reduction must be temporary and compensations must follow subsequently.
The Constitutional Court so far did not have a chance to express its views on the doctrine of the independence of the National State Audit Office.
Purpose constitutional amendment
What is the purpose of the constitutional amendment and what is its position in the constitution?
Relationship with EU law
Is the constitutional amendment seen as changing the relationship between national and European constitutional law?
Have there been changes to organic laws or other types of legislation that are of a different nature or level than ordinary legislation, in relation to Euro-crisis law or the budgetary process?
Yes. The Constitutional Law on the Implementation of the Fiscal Treaty No. XIIP-1761(2) was adopted on 6 November 2014. Its content is addressed above under part IX. The Law is of a different level than ordinary legislation as it requires a stricter, longer and a more complicated amendment procedure. The constitutional law is adopted if more than half of all members of the Seimas (more than 71) vote for it. Once adopted, it can be amended if at least 3/5 of all members of the Seimas vote in favour.
The Constitutional Law on the Implementation of the Fiscal Treaty was adopted by 103 members of Seimas voting for, 1 against and 2 abstending. The Law was thus included in the list of Constitutional Laws, which includes 9 other Laws: the Law on State Language, The Law on State Heraldic Arms and other Heraldic Arms and Signs, the Law on State Flag and other Flags, the Law on State Anthem, the Law on Referendum, the Law on the Approval, Entry into Force and Implementation of the Code of Elections, the Law on Citizen‘s Legislative Initiative, the Law on Petitions, the Law on State of Emergency.
Constitutional amendment and ordinary law
If ordinary legislation was adopted in conjunction with a constitutional amendment, what is the relationship between the two?
Perception source of legal change
In the public and political discussions on the adoption of ordinary legislation, what was the perception on the appropriate legal framework? Was the ordinary legislation seen as implementing national constitutional law, or Euro-crisis law?
With little discussions as there were on the issue, there was a clear understanding among the Members of Parliament and the public that the rules were of a European origin and were adopted in order to implement the eurocrisis law.
What other information is relevant with regard to Lithuania and to changes to national (constitutional) law?
No other relevant information.
 Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės nutarimas Dėl LR dalyvavimo Europos Stabilumo Mechanizmo valdytojų taryboje ir direktorių valdyboje. Europos stabilumo mechanizme tvarkos aprašas [Decision of the Government of Lithuania on Lithuania’s participation at the European Stability Mechanism Board of Governors and the Board of Directors] 2015-01-01, TAR Nr. 2902.
 Europos teisės departamento išvada įstatymo dėl Belgijos Karalystės, Bulgarijos Respublikos, Danijos Karalystės, Vokietijos Federacinės Respublikos, Estijos Respublikos, Airijos, Graikijos Respublikos, Ispanijos Karalystės, Prancūzijos Respublikos, Italijos Respublikos, Kipro Respublikos, Latvijos Respublikos, Lietuvos Respublikos, Kiuksemburgo Didžiosios Hercogystės, Vengrijos, Maltos, Nyderlandų Karalystės, Austrijos Respublikos, Suomijos Respublikos , Portugalijos Respublikos, Rumunijos, Slovėnijos Respublikos, Slovakijos Respublikos, Suomijos Respublikos ir Švedijos Karalystės sutarties dėl stabilumo, koordinavimo ir valdysenos ekonominėje ir pinigų sąjungoje ratifikavimo projektui, XIP-4491 [The conclusion of the Department of European Law on the draft Law Ratifying the Fiscal Compact], 2012-06-05, Nr. S-2012-4726. Department of the European Law under the Ministry of Justice is an institution which advices the Government and Seimas on issues concerning implementation of European law. It also represents the Government in cases considered by the EU Court of Justice.
 Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo nutarimas Dėl valstybės ir savivaldybių biudžetų rodiklių [Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania on the Fiscal Indicators of State and Municipal Budgets, Nr. 25/01, 2002-01-14. An official translation is available at: http://lrkt.lt/en/court-acts/rulings-conclusions-decisions/171/y2002
 Europos Teisės Departamento išvada LR Seimo Teisės ir teisėtvarkos komitetui įstatymo dėl Belgijos Karalystės, Budgarijos Respublikos, Danijos Karalystės, Vokietijos Federacinės Respublikos, Estijos Respublikos, Kipro Respublikos, Latvijos Respublikos, Lietuvos Respublikos, Liuksemburgo Didžiosios Hercogystės, Vengrijos, Maltos, Nyderlandų Karalystės, Austrijos Respublikos, Lenkijos Respublikos, Portugalijos Respublikos, Rumunijos, Slovėnijos Respublikos, Slovakijos Respublikos, Suomijos Respublikos ir Švedijos Karalystės sutarties dėl stabilumo, koordinavimo ir valdysenos ekonominėje ir pinigų sąjungoje ratifikavimo projektui, [European Law Department Conclusion to Seimas on the draft Law on the Ratification of the TSCG, 5 June 2012, no S-2012-4726.]
 Seimo rytinio posėdžio stenograma, [Seimas‘ morning session transcript] 2012-06-28.
 Fiskalinės drausmės paktas į Lietuvos Konstituciją nesikėsins? [Will the Fiscal Treaty threaten the Constitution of Lithuania?] www.Veidas.lt , 2012-03-15.
 Rulings of the Constitutional Court of 14 January 2002 and of 15 February 2013, and an interpretative decision of 16 April 2014. An academic summary is presented by T. Birmontienė, Konstitucinė valstybės biudžeto doktrina [The Constitutional Doctrine on the State Budget], Konstitucinė Jurisprudencija 2012, vol. 3 (27) p. 94-119.
 Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 11 July 2002 on the funding of healthcare system, longterm funding of the systems of research and education, drafting and composition of the State Budget; Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 16 May 2013 on compliance with the Constitution of a number of provisions of the Law on Social Insurance, the Law on Health Insurance, the Law on Social Insurance of Maternity and Sickness. All official translations in English are available at www.lrkt.lt