16. The Summoned party – the Chairperson of the Social and Employment
Matters Committee of the Saeima Aija Barča – informed the Constitutional Court
that the Committee under her supervision has repeatedly drawn the Saeima’s attention
to the fact that the impugned provisions do not comply with the Constitution. For this
reason, several meetings of the Committee have been convoked in which alternative
solutions to the adoption of the impugned provisions were developed – for example, a
proposal to establish the maximum pension amount of 350 lats and to restrict the
pension disbursements to employed pensioners for 50 percent.
A. Barča drew the Constitutional Court’s attention to the fact that the Social and
Employment Matters Committee of the Saeima has prepared amendments to the
Disbursement Law, proposing that the pension restrictions established in Articles 2
and 3 of this law would not be applied to persons with disabilities of Groups 1, 2 and
3; more than that, the pension deductions would be reimbursed to these persons.
Likewise, eight draft laws have been developed which provided that service pension
disbursement restrictions would not be applied to service pension recipients with
disabilities of Groups 1, 2 and 3.
17. The Summoned party – doctoral student of the University of Latvia Anita
Kovaļevska – acknowledged that, by means of the impugned provisions, the legislator
has changed the operation of the social insurance system as an exception for a certain
period of time, restricting the rights of persons to receive their pensions granted in
accordance with the procedure established by the law by decreasing the amount of
social security. If the rights of persons provided by the Constitution are restricted,
among other things, the international commitments of Latvia have to be taken into
account. Summarizing the criteria indicated by the Constitutional Court and the UN
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, A. Kovaļevska concluded that
such factors as the procedure for the adoption of legal provisions, the legitimate aim
and the observance of the principle of proportionality have to be considered.
A. Kovaļevska further admitted that the Disbursement Law had been adopted in
compliance with the prescribed procedure. However, she maintained that there was no
sufficient evidence as to whether the Saeima had considered alternative options or had
consultations with the affected groups.
21