state budget funds at the expense of such an unprotected group of society, namely, the recipients of old age pensions, is unacceptable. Likewise, the legitimate end of the impugned provisions cannot be the one mentioned in the Disbursement Law – “to grant social security to persons within the limits of the available financing”. On the contrary, the state has to provide financing for the satisfaction of social needs in the amount guaranteed by the legislative acts. When determining whether the impugned provisions are proportionate and whether the same ends could be reached by other means that interfere less with the rights of persons, it should be considered that social rights are different human rights since they depend on the economic situation in the country and the available resources. If there is not enough financing in the state social budget to safeguard the above principles, the state should look for other alternatives. The additional explanations to the Application of the members of the Parliament list the following other alternatives: firstly, to increase income by improving collection of the existing taxes; secondly, to reduce other budget expenditures; thirdly, to introduce new taxes or to increase the existing ones. Noncompliance of the impugned provisions to the Constitution follows also from the draft law annotation that states a risk that these provisions might contradict Articles 1 and 109 of the Constitution. 2.3. As to Article 3, Paragraph One of the Disbursement Law, lack of consultations with experts during preparation of the draft law is also considered as its substantial drawback. Thus, the fiscal effect of the provision has not been duly assessed; moreover, it can even be disputed. A situation when the fiscal effect of the provision turns out exactly the opposite and the resources of the state social insurance budget would decrease is also possible. Likewise, there is no substantiation as to why the legislator has included this particular amount of pension disbursement decrease in the impugned provisions, i.e. 70 percent. The Applications also dispute the allegation that the impugned provisions have been adopted because the international creditors – the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund (hereinafter – IMF) – had had required so. Article 3, Paragraph One of the Disbursement Law does not comply with Article 91 of the Constitution because it envisages unequal situation between 5