whether it is possible to adjudicate this matter on the basis of the provided substantiation (cf. Paragraph 17 of the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 2007-23-01 passed on 3 April 2008). It follows from the replies of the Saeima that the service pension disbursement amount in the impugned provisions is established on the grounds of the same considerations as those concerning old-age pensions. All the pension disbursement amounts established by the impugned legal provisions are essentially based on a similar understanding of the legislator’s rights to implement specific changes in the regulation of social rights. Therefore, it is also possible within this Case to determine the compliance of the service pension disbursement amount established in Article 2, Paragraph One of the Disbursement Law with Article 109 of the Constitution. 21. None of the cases were initiated based on a constitutional claim regarding compliance of the first part of Section 2 of the Disbursement Law insofar as it applies to service pensions mentioned in the norm with legal norms of higher legal force. However, the application lodged by twenty members of the Saeima does not provide for justification for the fact why that deductions from long-service pensions should be regarded as non-compliant with requirements of legal norms (acts) of higher force. The Saeima has indicated that, in the case No. 2009-68-01, it is possible to apply the arguments provided in the replies of the Saeima regarding cases No. 200952-01, No. 2009-63-01 and No. 2009-65-01 on an analogous basis. Cases No. 200963-01 and No. 2009-65-01 have been initiated on constitutionality of the first part of Section 3 of the Disbursement Law insofar as it applies to service pensions that in fact are analogous to pensions mentioned in Section 2 of the Disbursement Law. The Constitutional Court has already recognized: It follows from the principle of procedural economy that it would not be useful to repeatedly decide on the issues that could be adjudicated in the case under review. The decisive circumstance is the fact whether those norms are so closely related to the contested norms contested in the case under review and whether assessment of them is possible in the frameworks of the provided justification (see: Judgment of 3 April 2008 by the Constitutional Court in the case No. 2007-23-01, Para 17). It follows from the replies submitted by the Saeima that the procedure for 31