Social law reforms during crisis and post-crisis period in Lithuania

ENConsidering that the crisis affected various areas of economic, political and social interests, Lithuania has implemented a wide list of measures in response. The first references to the economic downturn in Lithuania appeared in the legal acts of late 2008 - in the Programme of the newly formed 15th Government of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter - the Government). The Programme stated that "the 15th Government is fully aware that the key task for the nearest period is to contain the economic downturn and its impact. Failure to meet the goals set out in the Crisis Management Plan will render the implementation of the remaining Government programme virtually impossible". The newly formed Government had high ambitions and aspirations to overcome the economic downturn. The fact that these political decisions stemmed from the economic downturn in the state was also pointed out in Government resolution No. 1295 "On the Economic Downturn" of 14 October 2009. It reconfirmed that urgent measures were needed to consolidate the public finances of the state, control the sovereign debt and deficit, ensure the stability of finances and boost the national economy as long as.the economic downturn continued. It also provided for cuts in the national and municipal budgets, in the budgets of the State Social Insurance Fund and the Compulsory Health Insurance Fund to be implemented tasking account of budget revenues and the possibilities of sustainable borrowing.From 2009, when the austerity measures started to be applied, the Constitutional Court has been consistently developing its constitutional doctrine on anti-crisis measures. It has widely interpreted the limits, which cannot be exceeded during the economic downturn. The Constitutional Court adopted two rulings concerning the remuneration cuts in the public sector during the economic downturn, and three Court rulings concerning the reduction of social security benefits were adopted as well. The Constitutional Court held that, in cases where the legal regulation is held to be in conflict with the constitutional right to receive a fair remuneration for work, to safeguard the protection oi ownership enshrined in the Constitution, the legislature mttst establish a mechanism for compensation for the losses suffered by persons, so that the state could compensate them fairly, to the extent these losses were disproportionate, within a reasonable period of time.