the restrictions, or, in case of need, a draft law concerning their full or partial revocation. The Constitutional Court in its judgments repeatedly adjudicated the constitutional compliance of legal provisions pertaining to social rights, affirming that the State itself is responsible for the system of social and economic protection (types and amounts of allowances) and its maintenance. This system is dependent on the economic situation in the State and the available resources. Moreover, the State should be vested with wide-ranging freedom of action when deciding the matters of social rights (see Paragraph 1 of the Concluding Part of the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 2001-11-0106 passed on 25 February 2002 and Paragraph 9 of the Judgment in the Case No. 2005-19-01 passed on 22 December 2005). Usually the political dimension of decisions concerning the enactment of social rights taken by the State – and, especially, by its legislator – is of importance, that is, decisions in this area are made not so much following legal considerations than political ones, which, in turn, are dependent on both the legislator’s idea of the State social service principles and a special need of the society or its part for relief or support from the State (see Paragraph 16 of the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 2006-04-01 passed on 8 November 2006). In the area of social rights it is not always possible to draw an exact dividing line between legal and political considerations, and the Constitutional Court should refrain from judging the political matters, for it is primarily the area of authority of a democratically legitimated legislator (cf., e.g., Paragraph 29 of the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 2003-05-01 passed on 29 October 2003 and Paragraph 18 of the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 2005-02-0106 passed on 14 September 2005). The State has a threefold duty in the area of each fundamental right: to respect, to protect and to guarantee the rights of persons. Acting in conformity with human rights, the State should enact a range of measures – both passive, for example, noninterference with the rights of persons, and active, for example, satisfaction of persons’ individual needs (cf. Paragraph 7 of the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 2007-23-01 passed on 3 April 2008). In the area of social rights it is crucial whether the State with its affirmative action can guarantee the satisfaction of person’s individual needs resultant from a particular 37