expenditures, such as the devaluation of the national currency, were regarded as unacceptable. With the adoption of the impugned provisions, the planned social insurance special budget economy for the year 2009 was more than 88 million lats. A. Kovalevska pointed out that the measures specified in Article 2 of the Disbursement Law are appropriate for the attainment of the legitimate end, for the reduction of the amount of pension disbursements helps substantially reduce the special budget expenditures, whereas the appropriateness of the measures specified in Article 3, Paragraph One of the Disbursement Law are debatable (see Case materials, vol. 10, p. 116). 29.2. The Constitutional Court admitted that the means chosen by the legislator could be appropriate for the attainment of the legitimate end if it were possible to attain this end by the regulation in question. Determining the appropriateness, the Constitutional Court cannot take the legislator’s place and present more appropriate political decisions or advise how to allocate the State budged funds. The task of the Court is to determine whether the impugned provisions are reasonable and harmonised, whether the State possesses the resources needed for their implementation, whether the provisions are balanced, flexible and bring about short-term or long-term satisfaction of needs as well as whether these provisions are transparent and have been made public (see Langa P., Taking Dignity Seriously. Judicial Reflections on the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR, Nordic Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2009, p. 33). The Constitutional Court agreed that the impugned provisions were directly related to the urgent need to balance the State budget, including the social insurance special budget, in order to diminish the influence of the economic recession on the balance of revenues and expenditures as well as to ensure the sustainability of the pension system. In certain cases, economic crisis can develop to the point when the freedom of action must be granted to the legislator to enable the implementation of remedial measures – even if the latter would infringe the fundamental rights established by the Constitution. In the situation of extremely limited financial resources of the State, the latter has freedom of action to change the conditions for pension disbursement – with the aim of sustaining a just social insurance system (see Concurring opinion of judge Thomassen, 45