The regulation in accordance with which the Tax Administration of the Republic of Slovenia may write off or partly write off [obligations arising from] compulsory pension and disability insurance contributions and which allows the suspension or phased payment of contributions interferes with the right of insured persons (i.e. workers) to private property determined in Article 33 of the Constitution. Within the scope of the test of legitimacy, the Constitutional Court does not only review whether the objective pursued by the state is in and of itself admissible, but also whether the means which the state applies in order to achieve such objective and the manner in which they are applied are constitutionally admissible. The means which the legislature applied in order to achieve the alleged objectives (i.e. the continuation of the activities of legal entities and retaining employed workers) are not constitutionally admissible, as upon the interference of the state in the ownership right of the workers for the benefit of the employers, only the workers bear all the risks and harmful consequences. The challenged regulation therefore does not fulfil the conditions determined by the Constitution for a limitation of human rights. As the challenged regulation inadmissibly interferes with the right of workers determined in Article 33 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court abrogated such inasmuch as it refers to the insured persons determined in Articles 13 and 14 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (Employed Persons). As the Constitutional Court established the unconstitutionality of the first paragraph of Article 228 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act in the part which was the basis for the adoption of the challenged Order determining the criteria for the write-off, partial write-off, suspension, and phased payment of [obligations arising from] contributions for pension and disability insurance and therefore abrogated it, the statutory basis on which the Order was adopted no longer exists. Thereby, inasmuch as it refers to the insured persons determined in Articles 13 and 14 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (Employed Persons), also the mentioned Order ceased to apply. Therefore, the Constitutional Court rejected the request in the part which referred to the Order. The Constitutional Court is not competent to review the mutual inconsistency of statutory provisions except in cases in which such entails an inconsistency with Article 2 of the Constitution, as inconsistencies or ambiguities can not be remedied by the established methods of interpretation. The petitioners do not allege that the fourth paragraph of Article 39 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act contains such inconsistencies or ambiguities, therefore this provision is not inconsistent with Article 2 of the Constitution.