fundamental right. At the same time, one should take into account that the provisions of the Constitution basically do not grant persons the rights to a specific amount of social security, and the State should refrain from excessive interference with the financial relations of its citizens. Therefore, the amount of social security granted by the State may vary depending on the amount of funds at the disposal of the State. However, the fundamental rights of persons established by the Constitution are binding to the legislator irrespective of the economic situation in the State. 25. The Applicants maintain that the impugned legal provisions restrict the fundamental constitutional rights. The replies of the Saeima also expressio verbis state that the impugned provisions restrict the fundamental rights of persons. The Constitutional Court has ruled that if the pensions granted in compliance with the procedure established by the law are not disbursed in full amount, the rights to social security in the case of old age granted by Article 109 of the Constitution and specified in the Law on State Pensions are restricted (cf., e.g., Paragraph 2 of the Concluding Part of the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 2001-12-01 passed on 19 March 2002 and Paragraph 10 of the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 2004-21-01 passed on 6 April 2005). Hence, the Disbursement Law restricts the fundamental rights of persons granted by Article 109 of the Constitution. 26. The rights granted by Article 109 of the Constitution may be restricted if such a restriction is established by the law, justified by a legitimate end and conforms to the principle of proportionality (cf., e.g., Paragraph 26 of the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 2007-04-03 passed on 9 October 2007). The restriction of fundamental rights is established by the law, namely, it is included in the Disbursement Law adopted by the Saeima on 16 June 2009 and announced by the President of the State on 30 June 209. The Case does not contain any materials that would call into question the legitimacy of the adoption of the impugned provisions. At the same time, it should be pointed out that haste in the context of preparation and adoption of the impugned provisions, as well as the fact that society was not duly and timely informed prior to the adoption of these provisions, should be viewed negatively 38