the Application submitters’ fundamental rights established by the Constitution than to invalidate the impugned provisions as of the moment of their adoption. In this case, the State is obliged to reimburse the deducted parts of pensions. All persons to whom the impugned provisions apply are in a situation similar to that of the Applicants. The Constitutional Court took into account that several thousands of other persons wanted to submit constitutional claims concerning these same impugned provisions. Thus, the Constitutional Court decided that not only the rights of the Applicants but also the rights of all recipients of pension have been infringed. Therefore, the impugned provisions must be invalidated as of the moment of their adoption with respect to all recipients of pension whom they affect. At the same time, one should take into account the fact that the impugned provisions significantly affect the finances of the State, i.e. the State budget. The effect of these provisions on the State budget is estimated for several tens of millions of lats. Instant enforcement of the judgment could cause rather unbeneficial consequences. Therefore, the Constitutional Court would analyse several circumstances that must be considered in deciding about the moment of invalidation of the impugned provisions. Article 66 of the Constitution states: “Annually, before the commencement of each financial year, the Saeima shall determine the State Revenues and Expenditures Budget.” Interpreting this Article, the Constitutional Court has indicated that “the funds required for the execution of the State duties are determined and substantiated for the budget in keeping with this procedure: in a timeframe for which these funds are planned, the expenditures are covered by the corresponding revenues (Paragraph 1 of the Conclusion Part of the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 1998-0105(98) passed on 27 November 2009). The Law on the State Budget for 2010 was adopted on 1 December 2009. Abandonment of the regulation of the impugned provisions was not planned in this budget. If the Constitutional Court Judgment had to be enforced immediately, a situation would arise that would be even more unconformable to the Constitution than the situation in which the consequences of the impugned provisions still continue for some period of time. Instant disbursement of pensions in full amount and reimbursement of all the sums withheld could substantially endanger the stability of both the basic budget of the State and the social 69