employed and non- employed pensioners. An alternative solution for this provision was a proposal to determine an equal deduction for all pensioners, e.g. in the amount of 15 percent. Yet, such a solution was not even considered. Likewise, employed pensioners are put in an unequal situation compared to the employees who are not pensioners. In this context the criteria of unequal treatment is age, and age discrimination is one of the prohibited discrimination types both in Latvia and in the European Union. Explanation by the Cabinet of Ministers that the adoption of Article 3, Paragraph One of the Disbursement Law is lenient because it is not applicable to certain self-employed persons, has no substantiation. Such a view is rather general and groundless because nobody has furnished exact number of persons to whom such a deduction of pension disbursement would not be applied. Likewise, one should take into account that persons whose income does not exceed one minimum monthly wage are not persons subject to mandatory social insurance in the interpretation of the Law on State Social Insurance; therefore they are not subject to recalculation of the state old-age pension in correspondence with social insurance contributions they have made. When assessing the impugned provisions from the aspect of Article 105 of the Constitution, it should be taken into account that the Latvian pension system is based on the principle of insurance. That is – each person or his/her employer makes contributions that make up person's pension capital. Therefore at least that part of pension that has been calculated since 1 January 1996 should be regarded as having been earned by the person, and the state has undertaken to disburse it when the person reaches a certain age. According to the Applicants, Article 3, Paragraph One of the Disbursement Law disproportionately restrict the property rights of a person since the calculated pension remains the same, whereas only 30 percent from the calculated pension is disbursed. Thus the essence of property rights is violated and further trust to the whole pension system is diminished. If the state had, for example, stipulated that such deduction from pensions should be treated as loan that will be repaid later, then the limitation would be proportionate. 6