of deficit in the State pension special budget as well as the need to secure the continuance of pension disbursements in the future should be particularly emphasized. When assessing the commensurability of the impugned provisions, the Ombudsman agreed with the statement mentioned in the reply of the Saeima that economic factors cannot be ignored in this case, i.e. it is possible to amend the legal enactments on pensions in extraordinary situations, also to reduce the amount of pension as much as it is needed for securing vitally important public and State interests and protecting other constitutional values. Such a group as elderly people especially depend upon economic and social situation in the country. There are many persons in this group who do not have adequate means for living and who are socially less protected. The legislator has not stipulated the minimum of rights that should be guaranteed in any case so that a person can meet the basic needs. The above is a failure to perform the basic duties of the State and has no justification whatsoever. Such a duty also follows from the principle of socially responsible state. The aim of this principle is to square substantial social differences and provide an appropriate standard of living to each group of population. Social justice includes concern for squaring of social differences, protection of the weakest members of the society and equality of opportunities. The Ombudsman emphasized that, in accordance with the impugned provisions, employed pensioners have been indirectly discriminated compared to the employees who have not reached the retirement age, since the possibility of choosing occupation freely is restricted for pensioners. The impugned provision pressed the employed pensioners to choose – either to receive full pension, or to continue employment. In addition, information on the alternatives to the impugned provisions is inconsistent. There is no proof that creators of the draft law and the Saeima have not sufficiently evaluated whether the set goal can be reached by other alternative means that are less restrictive in respect of the fundamental rights of persons. The Cabinet of Ministers and the Saeima should also have taken into account the Judgment of the Constitutional Court in the case No. 2001-12-01 of 19 March 2002. Obvious ignoring of the conclusions of this Judgment is regarded as unacceptable in a democratic state. The Ombudsman also maintained that the legislator has not planned lenient transition to the new legal order, i.e. time from the date of adopting the impugned 18