have not been sufficiently reviewed (see Case materials, vol. 9, p. 162f and vol. 10, p. 64). Also, during the debates concerning the Disbursement Law taking place at the meeting of the Saeima, several propositions alternative to the adoption of the impugned provisions were uttered, for instance – reduction of the expenditures of ministries, increase of the mandatory social insurance contribution rate or fixing the minimum amount of pension that cannot be further reduced (see transcripts of the meeting of the 9th Saeima taking place on 15 and 16 June http://www.saeima.lv/steno/Saeima9/090615/st090615.htm, http://www.saeima.lv/steno/Saeima9/090616a/st090616a.htm, accessed on 2 December 2009). Yet, these propositions were just uttered, not reviewed. The Constitutional Court concluded that neither the Cabinet of Ministers, nor the Saeima had carried out objective and well-weighed analysis neither regarding the consequences of the adoption of the impugned provisions, nor regarding other, less restrictive means for the attainment of the legitimate end. This conclusion also follows from the Disbursement Law Draft annotation, which states that “there is a risk that the provisions of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Draft Law contradict the principle of protection of legitimate expectations ensuing from Article 1 of the Constitution as well as cause the risk of contradiction to the rights of persons to equality and nondiscrimination established by Article 91 of the Constitution and the rights to social security established by Article 109, and may therefore constitute grounds for persons to apply to the Constitutional Court” (Article II, Annotation, the Draft Law on State Pension and State Allowance Disbursement in the Period from 2009 to 2012, http://titania.saeima.lv/LIVS/SaeimaLIVS.nsf/0/0BEB9E49A7761574C22575D6003F8 248?OpenDocument, accessed 1 December 2009). The Disbursement Law Draft annotation also indicates that no consultations with experts have taken place (see Article VI, Annotation, the Draft Law on State Pension and State Allowance Disbursement in the Period from 2009 to 2012). The Law Office of the Saeima, in turn, indicates in its opinion concerning the Disbursement Law Draft that there is no sufficient information for considering the draft law provisions as the most lenient and definitive means for the reduction of the State expenditures. Furthermore, the opinion goes on that applying the restriction provided in Paragraph 54