whether it would be beneficial for them to terminate their employment legal relationships pursuant to Article 100, Paragraph One of the Labour Law, which provides for the right to give a notice in writing of termination of an employment contract one month in advance. Moreover, there were cases when deductions from the pensions of employed pensioners were made even if the employment legal relationships had in fact been terminated. As a result, legal uncertainty increased even more. Annotation to the Disbursement Law Draft also conceded that the enforcement of this law from 1 July 2009 was unfeasible (see Article I, Annotation, the Draft Law on State Pension and State Allowance Disbursement in the Period from 2009 to 2012). The Constitutional Court has previously adjudicated that the amount of pensions of employed pensioners can be restricted, taking into account their income from employment (see Clause 3.1.1 of the Concluding Part of the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 2001-12-01 passed on 19 March 2002). However, the impugned legal provisions to be adjudicated within this Case do not envisage an allencompassing change of State policy with regard to the amount of pensions of employed pensioners; the provisions in question provide only a temporary restriction of pension disbursements. In any event, the employed pensioners could not foresee such a change of legal order – even if this change was supposed to be temporary; nor could they make a well-considered choice. Adjudicating whether a reasonable balance has been maintained between the need to protect legitimate expectations of persons and the need to secure public interests, one should consider whether the planned transition to the new legal order is sufficiently lenient. The Constitutional Court has previously established that such a lenient transition may be expressed in the form of setting down a reasonable transitional period or granting a compensation (see Paragraph 2 of the Concluding Part of the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 2001-12-01 passed on 25 March 2003). Having regard of the duty to protect persons’ reasonable confidence in the permanence of legal order ensuing from the principle of legitimate expectations, the State has not only rights; it also has a duty to counter the situations when public interests are seriously jeopardised. If legal order is changed for the common good of society, then such an action is permissible. On this account, a temporary reduction of 66