interpreted in Protocol 1, Article 1 of the Convention (cf., e.g., ECtHR Judgment in the Case Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, 12 April 2006, para. 51). In view of the aforesaid, the Constitutional Court concluded that the rights to pension fall under the fundamental rights to social security granted by Article 109 of the Constitution. In this case, there were reasons for acknowledging that the said article of the Constitution guarantees higher protection for the persons’ rights to pension. At the same time, it should be pointed out that the decrease of pension disbursement amount prescribed in the impugned legal provisions should also be considered in the context of principles derived from Article 1 of the Constitution and Protocol 1, Article 1 of the Convention, taking into account both the protection of property rights provided therein and the Latvian system of pension financing. Therefore, the compliance of the impugned legal provisions with Article 109 of the Constitution should be determined first. 21. None of the Cases was declared admissible following a constitutional claim concerning the compliance of Article 2, Paragraph One of the Disbursement Law – insofar as it pertains to the long service pensions specified in the provision – with the legal provisions of higher legal force. Furthermore, the Application submitted by twenty members of the Saeima, on the basis of which the case No. 2009-68-01 was declared admissible, does not contain substantiation for deeming that the deduction from the aforementioned long service pensions does not comply with the requirements of legal provisions (acts) of higher legal force. The Saeima pointed out that the arguments included in its replies in the cases No. 2009-52-01, No. 2009-63-01 and No. 2009-65-01 can be applied by analogy to the case Nr. 2009-68-01. Cases No. 2009-63-01 and No. 2009-65-01 were declared admissible with respect to Article 3, Paragraph One of the Disbursement Law – insofar as this paragraph pertains to service pensions, which are analogous to pensions specified in Article 2 of the Disbursement Law. The Constitutional Court stated that it follows from the principle of economy of legal costs that it would not be cost-effective to adjudicate repeatedly the matters that can be adjudicated within a specific case. The decisive factor is whether the matter to be adjudicated is closely related to the provisions impugned in the Case as well as 30