The Constitutional Court pointed out that the Agreement of 11 June by itself neither confirms, nor excludes the legitimacy or constitutional compliance of the impugned provisions. Also, the participation of individual organisations or public partners of the government in the preparation of the aforementioned Agreement is not indicative of the constitutional compliance or – just the opposite – non-compliance. The Agreement of 11 June cannot be considered as a legitimate precondition for the adoption of the impugned provisions; rather, it may be viewed a quasi-political pledge signed for different reasons by the individual organisations and public partners of the government along with the political parties constituting the government. The fact of the Agreement is relevant to this Case only insofar as possible alternatives to the impugned provisions have been considered during its preparation. In addition, contrary to the opinion expressed in the replies of the Saeima, the letter of the Cabinet of Ministers and the annotation to the Disbursement Law Draft, the Constitutional Court deemed that the participation of organisations and public partners of the government in the preparation of the Agreement of 11 June was just formal. 30.2.2. The Ministry of Welfare explained in the information it furnished to the Constitutional Court that the Disbursement Law Draft had to be drawn up in a limited period of time, and it was not possible to consider the alternatives for lack of time (see Case materials, vol. 9, p. 115). The Cabinet of Ministers, in turn, explained that debates concerning the required reduction of the State budget for 500 million lats were extremely difficult and hard. Other alternatives for the reduction of pensions were considered in these debates. Yet, as a result, an agreement was reached only with regard to one specific solution, namely, the one set forth in the Agreement of 11 June. Besides, it would not be rational to discuss other solutions during the Disbursement Law Draft preparation process also for the reason that the issue of the budget deficit reduction had to be settled immediately (see Case materials, vol., 9 p. 8). The information furnished by the Saeima, LBAS, LDDK, LPF, LPS and the Head of the Social and Employment Matters Committee A. Barca purport that separate alternatives to the adoption of the impugned provisions were discussed. For example, there was a proposition to set down the maximum amount of pension – 350 lats and to restrict the disbursement of pension to employed pensioners for 50 %. At the same time, it is acknowledged that the alternatives would not yield sufficient economy or 53