situation of economic recession, there is a high risk of making the economic situation in the country even worse. Ģ. Rungainis indicated that the overall economic effect of the employment of pensioners is relatively insignificant. From the economic viewpoint, the pensioners’ rights to employment should rather be deemed as a privilege; therefore, the restriction of these rights is permissible. Ģ. Rungainis also emphasized that the reduction of pension disbursements should be evaluated in the context of budget expenditure cuts in other areas. If the reduction of pension disbursements is proportionally equal to or lesser than the reductions in other areas, this measure should be viewed as an opportunity for the State. The Constitutional Court holds that: I 20. Cases concerning both the compliance of Article 2, Paragraph One of the Disbursement Law* with Articles 1 and 109 of the Constitution and the compliance of Article 3, Paragraph One of the Disbursement Law with Articles 1, 91, 105 and 109 of the Constitution were declared admissible in the Constitutional Court. It follows from the Applications and the reply of the Saeima (the Latvian Parliament) that the impugned legal provisions pertain to the area of social rights, and the Case disputes the legislator’s action which restricts the rights to social security granted by the Constitution. It also follows from the Case materials that the legislator has established restrictions for the disbursement of pensions in the Disbursement Law, thus restricting the fundamental rights to social security granted to persons by Article 109 of the Constitution (see Case materials, vol. 9, p. 182 and vol. 10, p. 113). When determining the compliance of legal provisions with the legal principles derived from the national fundamental values defined in Article 1 of the Constitution, one should take into account that these principles can take different expressions in different legal areas. The nature of the impugned provisions, their relation to other provisions of 27