the constancy and unchangeability of a lawfully issued legal provision. Then persons can plan with confidence their future in the context of the rights granted by this legal provision (see Sub-paragraph 3.2 of the Concluding Part of the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 2001-12-01 passed on 19 March 2002 and Paragraph 21 of the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 2006-04-01 passed on 8 November 2006). At the same time, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations does not preclude the State from making changes to the existing legal order. The principle cannot be interpreted so widely that it would safeguard persons from every possible dissatisfaction. Otherwise the State would not be able to react to changing conditions of life. Nevertheless, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations requires the State, when it changes an existing legal order, to observe a reasonable balance between persons’ confidence in the currently effective legal order and those interests for the sake of which this legal order is being changed (see Paragraphs 23 and 25 of the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 2009-08-01 passed on 26 November 2009). The Constitutional Court has already indicated that, when a resolution on revocation of pension revision was made in 2009, the determination of retaining the pension disbursement amount was referred to as the substantiation for this revocation in the debates of the Saeima (see Paragraph 21 of the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 2009-08-01 passed on 26 November 2009). Clause 12.2.4 of the government declaration endorsed on 11 March 2009 states that the government is not going to aggravate “the existing financial situation for pensioners and persons with disabilities; however, knowing that the previously signed international documents envisage ‘freezing’ of pensions in Latvia, which means temporary revocation of pension indexation”, further procedure for pension indexation will be defined more exactly. The reduction of pensions particularly affected the employed pensioners: deduction from their pensions was set for the amount of 70 %, while they could not terminate employment relations in accordance with the requirements of the relevant regulatory enactments of the Republic of Latvia. That is to say, approximately two weeks passed from the moment of adoption of the Disbursement Law until its effective date. Such a short period of time was insufficient for persons to assess in an adequate manner 65