Article 3 of the Disbursement Law; therefore, there are no grounds for analyzing whether Paragraph One of Article 3 of the Disbursement Law prescribes different treatment and whether such a different treatment has objective and reasonable grounds. 3.4. When determining the compliance of Paragraph One of Article 3 of the Disbursement Law with Article 105 of the Constitution, the Saeima pointed out that "making social insurance contributions cannot be regarded as creation of property, and the opinion that pension system creates ‘property’ in accordance with the Law on State Pensions has no grounds, because it is based on the principle that a person makes certain contributions". Although in the case No. 2007-01-01 the Constitutional Court ruled that the rights for pension disbursement are conformable with the nature of the concept of "property" in the first sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution, it would be appropriate to re-evaluate this issue precisely in the context of Paragraph One of Article 3 of the Disbursement Law. 3.5. Also, the impugned provisions do not violate Article 109 of the Constitution since social rights are special and different rights. The implementation of these rights depends on the economic situation in each country and the available resources. Economic growth and employment are preconditions for a social protection system of a higher level. During the period from 2002 to 2008, when economic growth rate in the country was accelerating and revenues of the state special budget were increasing respectively, a number of changes in the area of pensions were made to support the recipients of pensions, paying special attention to the recipients of small pensions. Before adopting the impugned provisions, the income of employees has decreased considerably, while unemployment has increased. As a result, special budget revenues that are basically made of social insurance contributions have considerably decreased. Therefore, it was necessary to balance expenditures and revenues within the limits of this budget. The adoption of the impugned provisions is considered as a necessary measure, and it was not possible to reach its goal by other means that would restrict the rights of an individual to a lesser extent. Since special budget revenues are made of social 10