Case No. 56/06
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISION OF PARAGRAPH 2
(WORDING OF 19 MAY 2005) OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA’S LAW ON SOCIAL INSURANCE OF ACCIDENTS AT
WORK AND OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES AND THE PROVISION OF
ITEM 13 (WORDING OF 22 MARCH 2004) OF THE REGULATIONS
CONCERNING SOCIAL INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR ACCIDENTS AT
WORK AND OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES AS APPROVED BY THE
RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
(NO.
309)
“ON
APPROVING
THE
REGULATIONS
CONCERNING SOCIAL INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR ACCIDENTS AT
WORK AND OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES” OF 22 MARCH 2004 WITH
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
29 April 2008
Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the
Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius, Toma Birmontienė, Pranas Kuconis, Kęstutis
Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Ramutė Ruškytė, Egidijus Šileikis, Algirdas Taminskas, and
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis
The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė
Seimas member Zenonas Mikutis, acting as the representative of the Seimas of the Republic
of Lithuania, a party concerned
Svetlana Černuševič, Head of the Department of Social Insurance and Pensions of the
Ministry of Social Security and Labour, and Marija Paskočinienė, Head of the Benefits and
Disability Control Section of the State Social Insurance Fund Board under the Ministry of Social
2
Security and Labour, acting as the representatives of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania,
a party concerned
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court
of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing, on 16 April 2008, considered constitutional
justice case No. 56/06 subsequent to the petition (No. 1B-60/2006) of the Klaipėda Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Item 1 (wording of 11
November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Republic of
Lithuania’s Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases and the
provision “Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that they meet the
conditions laid down in Items 7, 8, 10 or 11 of these Regulations, however, their occurrence
satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was inebriated or
intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the
peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” of Item 13
(wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents
at Work and Occupational Diseases as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania (No. 309) “On Approving the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance
Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004 are not in conflict
with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. The Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, considered an administrative
case. By its ruling the said court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the
Constitutional Court with a petition requesting an investigation into whether Item 1 (wording of 11
November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law on Social
Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (hereinafter also referred to as the Law)
and the provision “Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that they meet the
conditions laid down in Items 7, 8, 10 or 11 of these Regulations, however, their occurrence
satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was inebriated or
intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the
3
peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” of Item 13
(wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents
at Work and Occupational Diseases (hereinafter also referred to as the Regulations) as approved by
the Government Resolution (No. 309) “On Approving the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance
Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004 (hereinafter also
referred to as government resolution No. 309 of 22 March 2004) are not in conflict with Paragraph
1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
II
The petition of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, is grounded on
the following arguments.
The Constitution establishes the guarantees of workers regarding the formation of safe and
healthy conditions at work as well as the right to receive social assistance in the event of
unemployment. According to the petitioner, in the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania it is
established that the employer must secure safety and health of employees, as well as create proper
and safe working conditions which are non-hazardous to health. Paying social insurance
contributions, the employer insures his responsibility against accidents at work.
The impugned Item 1 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May
2005) of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases
and Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations as approved by government resolution
No. 309 of 22 March 2004 enshrine the imperative requirement to consider in all cases, regardless
of the reasons of an accident, the accident when an employee is inebriated to be an event not
insured against. In the presence of such regulation, the employee is considered to be absolutely at
fault for the accident at work even when his drunkenness degree was low and it had no influence on
the fact that there was an accident, while the accident happened only because of the fact that the
employer had not created safe and healthy working conditions. Such regulation violates the
Constitution, inter alia, Paragraph 1 of its Article 29, Paragraph 1 of its Article 48 and Article 52
thereof, and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court’s hearing, written
explanations were received from the representative of the Seimas, a party concerned, who was
Seimas member Z. Mikutis, and the representatives of the Government, a party concerned, who
were S. Černuševič and M. Paskočinienė, in which it is stated that the impugned provisions of the
legal acts are not in conflict with the Constitution.
4
1. The position of Seimas member Z. Mikutis, the representative of the Seimas, a party
concerned, is based on the following arguments.
1.1. If the behaviour of a person does not meet the standards of behaviour at the working
place which are established by law, i.e. he is inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic or other
substances, the risk for an accident at work increases and a threat arises for public interests. When it
is established by means of the impugned regulation that an accident at work which happened to an
inebriated person is not considered an event insured against, namely the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law is followed. When choosing any job, a person has the right (in case of an
event insured against) to receive social insurance benefits for accidents at work, however, he
reasonably loses them, if he consciously does not follow the requirements established by the legal
acts (i.e., when he is inebriated), therefore, such recognition of accidents at work as events not
insured against is not in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution.
1.2. The impugned provision of the Law is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of
the Constitution, since the duty of the employer, which stems from the Constitution, to ensure that
safety requirements for the employees at the place of work are followed, is also implemented
implicitly by defining accidents at work which happened with regard of inebriated persons as events
which are not insured against. The inebriated employees should not expect that the state will
implement its duties regardless of the circumstances of the accident at work, since, otherwise, the
content and essence of the social assistance which is established in Article 52 of the Constitution
and which is guaranteed in the cases which are provided for in the Constitution and laws would be
distorted.
2. The position of S. Černuševič, a representative of the Government, a party concerned, is
based on the following arguments.
2.1. When being inebriated at work, a person obviously violates his constitutional duty to
follow laws, and this duty stems from the principle of a state under the rule of law. While
implementing the requirements of the laws grounded on the constitutional principles, the
Government established in the impugned resolution a reasonable requirement for persons to
implement their duties. The state social insurance benefits in the presence of the established
regulation (to the extent impugned by the petitioner) are not paid namely because of the fact that by
such regulation established by the Government one seeks to give equal opportunities to all working
persons to receive the said benefits (and not to abuse this right by those inebriated persons who are
at work when the event insured against takes place), thus, the said regulation is in compliance with
Article 29 of the Constitution.
2.2. The right to proper and safe conditions at work which is enshrined in Article 48 of the
Constitution would be violated if the government resolutions did not establish the duty for the
5
employees to properly implement their work functions (inter alia, to abstain from using intoxicants
at work).
2.3. In case of the death of a person who suffered injury, his family members do not lose the
right to apply for the state social insurance widows’ and/or orphans’ pensions even in those cases,
when the accident at work is not considered an event insured against and the person who suffered
injury (in case of his death—his family members) does not acquire the right to the social insurance
benefit for accidents at work, thus, such regulation is not in conflict with Article 52 of the
Constitution.
3. In the written explanations of M. Paskočinienė, a representative of the Government, a
party concerned, it is stated that after a requirement has been established in the government
resolution to consider, in all cases, an accident at work during which the insured person was
inebriated to be an event not insured against, the constitutional principle of all persons equality
before the law has been implemented. This principle implies the duty of the legislature to require
the employees to follow the principles of reasonableness, justice and good faith, not to abuse their
rights, inter alia, not to drink alcohol (since it is a gross breach of work discipline). Such regulation
when the employees who abuse their rights, inter alia, who drink alcohol at work, lose their social
assistance in case of an accident, is in conformity also to the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law because the restriction of the use of alcohol established in the legal acts is a part of
state policy which is implemented while creating a healthy society, and a safe and strong state.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court’s hearing, written
explanations were received from P. Koverovas, State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice of the
Republic of Lithuania, J. Andriuškevičiūtė, a senior adviser of the Legal Department of the Office
of the Seimas, M. Mikaila, Director of the State Social Insurance Fund Board under the Ministry of
Social Security and Labour, and J. Naujalis, Deputy Chief State Labour Inspector of the Republic of
Lithuania,.
V
At the Constitutional Court’s hearing, the representative of the Seimas, a party concerned,
who was Seimas member Z. Mikutis, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in his written
explanations.
At the Constitutional Court’s hearing, the representatives of the Government, a party
concerned, who were S. Černuševič and M. Paskočinienė, virtually reiterated the arguments set
forth in their written explanations, as well as presented additional explanations.
6
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requests an investigation into
whether Item 1 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of
Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases and the
provision “Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that they meet the
conditions laid down in Items 7, 8, 10 or 11 of these Regulations, however, their occurrence
satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was inebriated or
intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the
peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” of Item 13
(wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents
at Work and Occupational Diseases as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 309) “On
Approving the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004 are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29,
Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principle of
a state under the rule of law.
2. It is obvious from the arguments of the petition of the petitioner that he doubts whether
the provision “accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their
occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was
inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to
the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” (wording of
11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law and the
provision “Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their
occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was
inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to
the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” of Item 13
(wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations as approved by government resolution No. 309 of
22 March 2004, in the aspect that those accidents at work or established acute occupational
diseases, upon the investigation of which it is established that the insured person was inebriated or
intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the
7
peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), but the insured
person’s inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances was not the reason
of the accident at work or established acute occupational disease, are not considered events insured
against, are not in conflict with the provision “Each human being <...> shall have the right to have
proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in the event of
unemployment” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.
II
1. On 23 December 1999, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Social
Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases which came into force on 1 January
2000. Under Article 1 of the Law, this Law regulated the relations of social insurance of an accident
at work, on the way to or from work and occupational disease occurrences, stipulated the categories
of persons who are insured with this type of social insurance, the rights to such insurance benefits,
conditions, calculation and payment of benefits, and defined the events which are insured or not
insured against.
2. Item 1 (wording of 23 December 1999) of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of Law on Social
Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases prescribed:
“The events insured against shall not include the accidents at work, upon investigation of
which it was established that they had taken place as a result of:
(1) the fact that the person who suffered injury was intoxicated from alcohol, narcotics or
toxic materials and this did not have any connection with the technological process.”
The Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (wording of
23 December 1999) has been amended and supplemented more than once, however, Item 1
(wording of 23 December 1999) of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 thereof has not been amended and
supplemented.
3. It needs to be noted that according to Item 1 (wording of 23 December 1999) of
Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases, the state of the insured person (intoxication from alcohol, narcotics or toxic substances)
during the accident at work was not made absolute; under this regulation, only those accidents at
work, upon investigation of which it was established that they had happened because of the fact that
the person who suffered injury was intoxicated from alcohol, narcotics or toxic substances and it
was not related to the technological process, were not defined as events insured against.
It needs to be noted that after coming into force of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents
at Work and Occupational Diseases (wording of 23 December 1999), the Republic of Lithuania
Provisional Law on Compensation for Damage Pertaining to Accidents at Work or Occupational
Diseases which was adopted by the Seimas on 1 July 1997 and which came into force on 1
8
September 1997, continues to be in effect; the said law is applied for compensation for damage: (1)
pertaining to accidents at work which happened until 31 December 1999 inclusive, and to
occupational diseases which were considered, under the established procedure, to be occupational
diseases until 31 December 1999 inclusive; (2) pertaining to occupational diseases which were
considered, under the established procedure, to be occupational diseases after 1 January 2000 to
those victims who after 1 January 2000 were not insured under the provisions of the Law on Social
Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (Paragraph 7 (wording of 29 May 2003)
of Article 23 of the Law).
4. On 8 May 2000, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 506) “On Approving the
Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases” which came into force on 11 May 2000 and which approved the Regulations Concerning
Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (hereinafter also
referred to as the Regulations as approved by government resolution No. 506 of 8 May 2000) which
regulated the procedure for allocation and payment of the insurance benefits from the funds
allocated for social insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases. They did not
enumerate the cases when accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases are
considered or are not considered events insured against.
The Regulations as approved by government resolution No. 506 of 8 May 2000 have been
amended more than once, however, the cases when the accidents at work or established acute
occupational diseases were considered or were not considered events insured against were not
enumerated therein.
5. On 11 November 2003, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on
Amending the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, whose
Article 1 set forth the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases in
its new wording. The Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases in
its new wording came into force as from 1 January 2004, with the exception of its Article 29 which
had to come into force as from 1 January 2005.
6. The Law (wording of 11 November 2003) establishes the relations of social insurance of
an accident at work, on the way to and from work, and occupational disease occurrences, stipulates
the categories of persons who are insured with this type of social insurance, the rights to such
insurance benefits, conditions, calculation and payment of benefits, and defines the events insured
or not insured against (Article 1). Under the Law, in the cases specified in this Law the social
insurance of an accident at work compensates the income which was not received due to the events
insured against (accidents at work, on the way to or from work or occupational diseases) for the
persons who are insured by this kind of insurance, and in case of their death in the cases of events
9
insured against—for the members of their families (Paragraph 1 of Article 2); the services of
treatment and medical rehabilitation of the persons who suffered injury are compensated under the
procedure established in the Law on Health Insurance (Paragraph 2 of Article 2).
Under the Law (wording of 11 November 2003), due to an event insured against, the insured
person, who partially or fully lost his working capacity, shall be paid the following from the funds
allocated for social insurance against accidents at work from the budget of the State Social
Insurance Fund: a benefit for a disease due to an accident at work, on the way to or from work, or a
benefit for an occupational disease (Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 11), one-off compensation for
the lost working capacity (Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 11), periodic compensation for the lost
working capacity (Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 11), upon death of the insured person because of
an event insured against, his family members shall be paid a one-off insurance benefit in equal parts
(Paragraph 2 of Article 11), upon death of the insured person because of an event insured against,
his family members shall be paid a periodic insurance benefit in equal parts (Paragraph 3 of Article
11).
Under the Law, an accident at work is an event at work, including a traffic accident at the
time of work, which was investigated under the established procedure and considered an accident at
work, whose consequence is the employee’s injury (minor, major, fatal); an event at work, when the
employee died because of a disease not linked with the job, is not defined as an accident at work
(Paragraph 11 of Article 3); an occupational disease is sudden or chronic deterioration in the health
of an employee, caused by one or more harmful and/or dangerous factors in the work environment,
which in accordance with the established procedure has been considered an occupational disease
(Paragraph 14 of Article 3).
In this context, it needs to be noted that, under Item 2 (wording of 1 July 2003) of Paragraph
4 of Article 42 titled “Classification of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of the
Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Safety and Health of Employees, which was adopted by the Seimas
on 1 July 2003 and which came into force on 16 July 2003, a sudden occupational disease is a
sudden disorder of health of an employee which is caused by a short-term (one-off or during one
working day) dangerous feature (features) of the working environment, which is characterised by a
sudden effect.
7. It needs to be noted that Article 6 titled “The Events Insured Against” (wording of 23
December 2005, effective at the time of the consideration of the constitutional justice case at issue)
of the Law consolidates the conditions, upon establishment of which accidents at work or
occupational diseases are considered events insured against.
Paragraph 1 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Article 7 titled “The Events Not Insured
Against” of the Law establishes a general rule, under which, the accidents at work, on the way to or
10
from work, or the established occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is
established that they do not meet the conditions established in Article 6 of this Law, are not
considered events insured against.
Under Paragraph 2 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Article 7 of the Law, whose
provision in the specified aspect is impugned in this constitutional justice case, accidents at work,
on the way to or from work, or established acute occupational diseases also were not considered
events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that even though they meet the
conditions laid down in Article 6 of this Law, their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following
circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or
psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as
defined for him by the insurance payer; (2) the insured person suffered from his own deed, in which
the institution of pre-trial investigation or the court established features of a criminal deed or that
this deed is related to an administrative violation of law; (3) the insured person deliberately (on
purpose) aimed that the accident would happen; (4) the insured person suffered from a disease
which was not related to the job; (5) the insured person arbitrarily (without the employer’s
knowledge) worked for himself (in his interests); (6) violence was used against the insured person,
if the circumstances and reasons of the violence are not related to work.
Thus, under Paragraph 2 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Article 7 of the Law, in case
there were at least one of these circumstances, accidents at work or established acute occupational
diseases were not considered events insured against.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it needs to be noted that under
Paragraph 2 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Article 7 of the Law, one of the independent
circumstances when accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases are not considered
events insured against is the insured person’s inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or
psychotropic substances (when it is not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as
defined for him by the insurance payer).
The Law, inter alia, Article 7 (wording of 11 November 2003) thereof, has been amended
and supplemented. Item 2 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law
on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases has been amended by, inter
alia, Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending Articles 2, 3, 4, 7, 26 and 27 of the
Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (wording of 24 June
2004), which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 June 2004—after the word “violation”, the words
“save the violations of the normative legal acts on safety or hygiene at work” were included, and
this item was set forth as follows: “(2) the insured person suffered from his own deed, in which the
institution of pre-trial investigation or the court established features of a criminal deed or that this
11
deed is related to an administrative violation of law, save the violations of the normative legal acts
on safety or hygiene at work”; Article 3 of Section II of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on
Amending and Supplementing the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases, the Provisional Law on Compensation for Damage Pertaining to Accidents at Work or
Occupational Diseases, the Law on Health Insurance, and the Law on State Social Insurance, which
was adopted by the Seimas on 19 May 2005 and which came into force on 1 July 2005,
supplemented Item 6 (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on
Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases—after the word “work”, the
words “save the cases, when the accident happens on the way to or from work” were included and
this item was set forth as follows: “(6) violence was used against the insured person, if the
circumstances and reasons of the violence are not related to work, save the cases, when the accident
happens on the way to or from work”, however, the provision “accidents at work <...> or
established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon
their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following
circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or
psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as
defined for him by the insurance payer” (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording
of 19 May 2005) of Article 7, which is in the specified aspect impugned by the petitioner in this
constitutional justice case, has not been amended and/or supplemented.
8. While construing the provision “accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational
diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is
established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the
insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and
this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the
insurance payer” (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of
Article 7 of the Law, which is impugned by the petitioner, it should be noted that the legal
regulation enshrined in it includes the legal situations where:
– accidents at work or established occupational diseases are not considered events insured
against, inter alia, in the cases when the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic,
toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of
work as defined for him by the insurance payer), and the accident at work or the insured person’s
falling ill with an acute occupational disease was caused namely by his inebriety or intoxication
from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances;
– accidents at work or established occupational diseases are not considered events insured
against, inter alia, in the cases when the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic,
12
toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of
work as defined for him by the insurance payer), but the accident at work or the insured person’s
falling ill with an acute occupational disease was caused not by his inebriety or intoxication from
narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances.
Therefore, under the regulation enshrined in the provision “accidents at work <...> or
established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon
their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following
circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or
psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as
defined for him by the insurance payer” (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording
of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law, accidents at work or established acute occupational
diseases are not considered events insured against both in the cases when the insured person was
inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to
the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), and the
accident at work or the insured person’s falling ill with an acute occupational disease was caused
namely by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, and in the
cases when the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic
substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him
by the insurance payer), but the accident at work or the insured person’s falling ill with an acute
occupational disease was caused not by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or
psychotropic substances.
9. On 22 March 2004, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 309) “On Approving the
Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases” whose Item 2 recognised the Government Resolution (No. 506) “On Approving the
Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases” of 8 May 2000 and the government resolutions which amended it as no longer valid, and
whose Item 1 approved the new Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at
Work and Occupational Diseases.
Under Item 1 of the Regulations as approved by government resolution No. 309 of 22 March
2004, the Regulations regulate the recognition of accidents at work, to or from work, and
occupational diseases as events insured against, the allocation and payment of the insurance benefits
and establish the procedure of their calculation and payment.
10. Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations, inter alia, provides:
“13. Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
considered events insured against, if upon their investigation it is established that they meet the
13
conditions laid down in Items 7, 8, 10 or 11 of these Regulations, however, their occurrence
satisfies at least one of the following circumstances:
13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic
substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him
by the insurance payer.”
Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004 of the Regulations as approved by government
resolution No. 309 of 22 March 2004 has been amended and supplemented more than once,
however, the impugned provision “Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases
shall also not be considered events insured against, if upon their investigation it is established that
<...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person
was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not
related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” of
Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations has not been amended or supplemented.
III
1. In this constitutional justice case regarding the compliance with Paragraph 1 of Article 29,
Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principle of
a state under the rule of law, the legal acts (paragraphs thereof) are impugned which regulate the
relations linked with the provision of social assistance of a corresponding kind.
2. Article 52 of the Constitution provides: “The State shall guarantee to citizens the right to
receive old age and disability pensions as well as social assistance in the event of unemployment,
sickness, widowhood, loss of the breadwinner, and in other cases provided for by law.”
3. While construing Article 52 of the Constitution, in its rulings the Constitutional Court has
held more than once: under the Constitution, the State of Lithuania is socially oriented and every
citizen of it has the right to social protection; the social maintenance, i.e. contribution of the society
to maintenance of such its members who are incapable of providing themselves from work or other
means or who are not sufficiently provided as a result of important reasons provided by law, is
deemed to have the status of a constitutional value; the measures of social protection express the
idea of social solidarity, they help a person to protect himself from possible social hazards; pensions
and social assistance provided for in Article 52 of the Constitution are one of the forms of social
protection; the provisions of Article 52 of the Constitution guaranteeing citizens’ right to social
maintenance, obligate the state to establish sufficient measures to implement and legally protect the
said right; the formula “the state shall guarantee” of Article 52 of the Constitution means, inter alia,
that various types of social assistance are guaranteed for the persons on the bases that are
established in laws; separate types of social assistance, persons who are granted social assistance,
the bases and conditions of granting and paying the social assistance, amounts thereof may,
14
according to the Constitution, be set solely by law; the legal regulation of the social assistance
relations is one of the most important guarantees of the constitutional right to social assistance.
4. Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution provides: “Each human being may freely
choose a job or business, and shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at
work, to receive fair pay for work and social security in the event of unemployment”.
5. The constitutional right to proper, safe and healthy working conditions means, inter alia,
that every employee has the right to such working conditions which would not exert negative
influence on his life, health, and which would be in line with the requirements of security and
hygiene (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 9 April 2002). At the same time, this constitutional
right implies the duty of the employer to ensure the suitability, safety and healthiness of working
conditions. A human right to proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, which stems from the
Constitution, inter alia, Paragraph 1 of its Article 48, does not deny also the duty of every employee
to follow the requirements of safety at work.
It needs to be noted that the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, under
which each human being shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work,
implies also the duty of the state to establish the legal regulation, under which the legal
preconditions for implementing this right would be created. While doing so, the state must also
establish the effective mechanisms of control over the implementation of this right.
6. In its rulings, the Constitutional Court has held more than once that the Constitution is an
integral act; the norms and principles of the Constitution constitute a harmonious system, it is not
permitted to construe any provision of the Constitution so that the content of any other
constitutional provision might be distorted or denied, since, thus, the essence of the entire
constitutional regulation would be distorted, the balance of values entrenched in the Constitution
would be disturbed.
7. While construing Article 52 of the Constitution together with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of
the Constitution, under which each human being may freely choose a job or business, and shall have
the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive, inter alia, social security in
the event of unemployment, as well as with Paragraph 1 of Article 53 of the Constitution, under
which the state shall also take care of people’s health, and, also taking account of the constitutional
principle of justice and the imperative of social harmony which is enshrined in the Constitution, it
needs to be held that the state is constitutionally obligated to render respective social assistance to
the person whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe, and unhealthy working
conditions (including accidents at work and occupational diseases) and to secure provision of
corresponding social assistance; the legislature may choose and consolidate in laws a model of
provision of the said assistance, inter alia, various forms thereof (state, private, etc.), however, it is
15
not permitted to establish any such legal regulation which would create preconditions for the
emergence of a situation where a person whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe,
and unhealthy working conditions (including accidents at work and occupational diseases) would
not receive any respective social assistance.
8. While taking account of various factors, inter alia, the resources, material and financial
capabilities of the state and society, and regulating the relations linked with rendering social
assistance to a person whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy
working conditions (including accidents at work and occupational diseases) in a corresponding
manner, the legislature has wide discretion. Certain grounds, conditions and amounts of allocation
and payment of such social assistance which are established by law may be varied ones. It also
needs to be noted that when regulating relations linked with rendering social assistance to the
person whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions
(including accidents at work and occupational diseases), one must heed the norms and principles of
the Constitution, inter alia, the duty of the state established in Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof to
ensure the right of every human being to have proper, safe and healthy working conditions, and
social security in the event of unemployment, the duty of the state, which is enshrined in Article 52,
to guarantee to citizens the right to receive old age and disability pensions as well as social
assistance in the event of unemployment, sickness, widowhood, loss of the breadwinner, the duty of
the state, which is enshrined in Paragraph 1 of Article 53, to take care of people’s health, as well as
the constitutional principles of equal rights of all persons and of proportionality. It is not permitted
to establish any such legal regulation whereby the appearance of the right of a person whose health
was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions (including accidents
at work and occupational diseases) to social assistance, which is guaranteed by the Constitution,
would be related to constitutionally unreasoned conditions, subjective decisions of certain
institutions or officials, or other conditions which could not cause such impairment of the person’s
health (let alone the one causing the person’s death).
9. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it needs to be emphasised that,
under the Constitution, the legislature may also not establish any such legal regulation whereby the
appearance of the rights of the person, whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe
and unhealthy working conditions which did not depend (and could not depend) on the actions and
the state of that person (including accidents at work and occupational diseases) to social assistance
would be related to the state of this person (inter alia, his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic,
toxic or psychotropic substances), when such state of the person did not cause and could not cause
the impairment of his health in general. Upon establishment of such legal regulation, one would
groundlessly make one of the said bases—the state of the person—for non-provision of the social
16
assistance, which stems from the Constitution, absolute; one would also disregard the imperatives
which stem from the Constitution, inter alia, Paragraph 1 of its Article 48, Article 52 and Paragraph
1 of Article 53 thereof, and from the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
IV
On the compliance of the provision of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article
7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases and the
provision of Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations Concerning Social
Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases as approved by the
Government Resolution (No. 309) “On Approving the Regulations Concerning Social
Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004 with
Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and
with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
1. The Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, impugns the compliance of
the provision “accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their
occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was
inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to
the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” (wording of
11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law on Social
Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, to the extent that those accidents at
work or established acute occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is established
that the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances
(if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the
insurance payer), but the insured person’s inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or
psychotropic substances was not the reason of the accident at work or established acute
occupational disease, are not considered events insured against, with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the
provision “Each human being <...> shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions
at work, to receive <...> social security in the event of unemployment” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48
and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law.
2. It has been mentioned that the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution,
under which each human being shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at
work, implies also the duty of the state to establish the legal regulation, under which the legal
preconditions for implementing this right would be created; when regulating relations linked with
rendering social assistance to the person whose health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe
17
and unhealthy working conditions (including accidents at work and occupational diseases), one
must heed the norms and principles of the Constitution; it is impermissible to establish any such
legal regulation whereby the appearance of the right of a person whose health was impaired as a
result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions (including accidents at work and
occupational diseases) to social assistance, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, would be
related to constitutionally unreasoned conditions, subjective decisions of certain institutions or
officials, or other conditions which could not cause such impairment of the person’s health (let
alone the one causing the person’s death).
3. In this ruling of the Constitutional Court it has also been held that the human right to
proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, which stems from the Constitution, inter alia,
Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof, does not deny also the duty of every employee to follow the
requirements of safety at work. In this context it needs to be noted that at work every employee
must be sober and not intoxicated from narcotic, toxic and psychotropic substances.
The Constitutional Court has held: alcoholism is a universally recognised social evil;
drunkenness of a person or his intoxication through narcotic or toxic substances negatively affects
the human being (he is incapable of controlling himself, he perceives the occurring situation
inadequately, co-ordination of his actions and his self-possession are slackened, frequently due to
such intoxication various negative effects occur, due to it laws are violated (the Constitutional
Court’s ruling of 3 December 1997); consumption of alcohol may cause universally known negative
consequences to the human health, public order and security of members of society, as well as to
other values which are protected and defended by law (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 21
January 2008).
4. In this ruling of the Constitutional Court it has also been held that, under the Constitution,
inter alia, Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 thereof, the legislature may not establish any
such legal regulation whereby the appearance of the right of the person, whose health was impaired
as a result of improper, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions which did not depend (and could
not depend) on the actions and state of that person (including accidents at work and occupational
diseases), to social assistance would be related to the state of this person (inter alia, his inebriety or
intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances), when such state of the person did not
cause and could not cause the impairment of his health in general.
5. It has been mentioned that under the legal regulation enshrined in the provision “accidents
at work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured
against if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of
the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic,
toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of
18
work as defined for him by the insurance payer” (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2
(wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law, accidents at work or established acute
occupational diseases are not considered events insured against both in the cases when the insured
person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not
related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), and
the accident at work or the insured person’s falling ill with an acute occupational disease was
caused namely by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and
in the cases when the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or
psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as
defined for him by the insurance payer), but the accident at work or the insured person’s falling ill
with an acute occupational disease was caused not by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic,
toxic or psychotropic substances.
5.1. The legal regulation which is enshrined in the impugned provision of the Law, to the
extent that it provides that the accidents at work or the established acute occupational diseases are
not considered events insured against when the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from
narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the
technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), and the accident at work or the
insured person’s falling ill with an acute occupational disease was caused namely by his inebriety or
intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, is constitutionally grounded, meets the
constitutional principles of proportionality and justice and does not deviate from the notion of social
assistance which is enshrined in the Constitution.
5.2. One should assess differently the legal regulation enshrined in the impugned provision
of the Law to the extent that it provides that the accidents at work or the established acute
occupational diseases are not considered events insured against when the insured person was
inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to
the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), but the
accident at work or the insured person’s falling ill with an acute occupational disease was caused
not by his inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, but by
improper, unsafe, and unhealthy working conditions. By such legal regulation, one makes absolute
one of the circumstances of recognition of the accident at work or falling ill with an acute
occupational disease as an event not insured against—the state of the insured person (inebriety or
intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances) irrespective of whether the accident at
work happened or the insured person fell ill with an acute occupational disease as a result of
improper, unsafe, and unhealthy working conditions which were not caused or could not be caused
by actions and/or state of this person. Under such legal regulation, an accident at work or falling ill
19
with an acute occupational disease is not considered an event insured against also in the case, when
the health of the insured person who was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or
psychotropic substances, was impaired not as a result of the said state, but as a result of improper,
unsafe, and unhealthy working conditions.
Therefore, such legal regulation is not constitutionally grounded, it does not comply with the
constitutional principles of proportionality and justice and it denies the right of a person, whose
health was impaired as a result of improper, unsafe, and unhealthy working conditions, to social
assistance which is enshrined in the Constitution, inter alia, in Paragraph 1 of its Article 48 and
Article 52 thereof.
6. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the conclusion should be drawn that the
provision “accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be
considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their
occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the insured person was
inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to
the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” (wording of
11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law on Social
Insurance of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases, to the extent that it provides that those
accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is
established that the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or
psychotropic substances, however, the insured person’s inebriety or intoxication from narcotic,
toxic or psychotropic substances was not the reason of the accident at work or established acute
occupational disease, are not considered events insured against, is in conflict with the provision
“Each human being <...> shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to
receive <...> social security in the event of unemployment” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article
52 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
7. It has been mentioned that the petitioner impugns the compliance of the provision
“Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events
insured against, if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at
least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated
from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the
technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” of Item 13 (wording of 22 March
2004) of the Regulations as approved by government resolution No. 309 of 22 March 2004, in the
aspect that that those accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases, upon the
investigation of which it is established that the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from
narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances (if this was not related to the peculiarities of the
20
technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer), but the insured person’s inebriety or
intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances was not the reason of the accident at
work or established acute occupational disease, are not considered events insured against, with
Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision “Each human being <...> shall have the right to have
proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in the event of
unemployment” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
8. After one compares the provision “Accidents at work, or established acute occupational
diseases shall also not be considered events insured against, if upon their investigation it is
established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the
insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and
this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the
insurance payer” of Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the Regulations as approved by
government resolution No. 309 of 22 March 2004 with the provision “accidents at work <...> or
established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon
their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following
circumstances: (1) the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or
psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as
defined for him by the insurance payer” (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording
of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law, it is obvious that these provisions establish identical legal
regulation.
9. After it has been held that the provision “accidents at work <...> or established acute
occupational diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation
it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1)
the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and
this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the
insurance payer” (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of
Article 7 of the Law, to the extent that it provides that those accidents at work or established acute
occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is established that the insured person was
inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, however, the insured
person’s inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances was not the reason
of the accident at work or established acute occupational disease, are not considered events insured
against, is in conflict with the provision “Each human being <...> shall have the right to have
proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in the event of
unemployment” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with the
21
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it should also be held that the provision
“Accidents at work, or established acute occupational diseases shall also not be considered events
insured against, if upon their investigation it is established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at
least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated
from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and this was not related to the peculiarities of the
technology of work as defined for him by the insurance payer” of Item 13 (wording of 22 March
2004) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 309) “On Approving the
Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases” of 22 March 2004 is in conflict with the provision “Each human being <...> shall have
the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in the
event of unemployment” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and with
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
10. Having held that the impugned provision (wording of 11 November 2003) of Paragraph
2 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 7 of the Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases and the impugned provision of Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004) of the
Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational
Diseases as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 309) “On Approving the Regulations
Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22
March 2004 to the specified extent are in conflict with the provision “Each human being <...> shall
have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in
the event of unemployment” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution, and
with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not
further investigate the compliance of the impugned provisions of the legal acts to the specified
extent with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution.
Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
Articles 1, 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:
1. To recognise that the provision “accidents at work <...> or established acute occupational
diseases shall also not be considered events insured against if upon their investigation it is
established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: (1) the
insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and
this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the
22
insurance payer” (wording of 11 November 2003, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2003, No. 1145114) of Paragraph 2 (wording of 19 May 2005, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2005, No. 712557) of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Social Insurance of Accidents at Work
and Occupational Diseases, to the extent that it provides that those accidents at work or established
acute occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which it is established that the insured person
was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, however, the insured
person’s inebriety or intoxication from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances was not the reason
of the accident at work or established acute occupational disease, are not considered events insured
against, is in conflict with the provision “Each human being <...> shall have the right to have
proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to receive <...> social security in the event of
unemployment” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
2. To recognise that the provision “Accidents at work, or established acute occupational
diseases shall also not be considered events insured against, if upon their investigation it is
established that <...> their occurrence satisfies at least one of the following circumstances: 13.1. the
insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances and
this was not related to the peculiarities of the technology of work as defined for him by the
insurance payer” of Item 13 (wording of 22 March 2004, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2004,
No. 44-1448) of the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for Accidents at Work and
Occupational Diseases as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania (No. 309) “On Approving the Regulations Concerning Social Insurance Benefits for
Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” of 22 March 2004, to the extent that it provides that
those accidents at work or established acute occupational diseases, upon the investigation of which
it is established that the insured person was inebriated or intoxicated from narcotic, toxic or
psychotropic substances, however, the insured person’s inebriety or intoxication from narcotic,
toxic or psychotropic substances was not the reason of the accident at work or established acute
occupational disease, are not considered events insured against, is in conflict with the provision
“Each human being <...> shall have the right to have proper, safe and healthy conditions at work, to
receive <...> social security in the event of unemployment” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 and Article
52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law.
23
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:
Armanas Abramavičius
Toma Birmontienė
Pranas Kuconis
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Ramutė Ruškytė
Egidijus Šileikis
Algirdas Taminskas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis