SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT pension had not been impaired (the Constitutional Court referred to Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX, and Janković, cited above). Likewise, the Convention did not guarantee the right to receive a pension for the work carried out in another country (referring to L.B. v. Austria (dec.), no. 39802/98, 18 April 2002). 55. The Constitutional Court then continued (emphasis as in the original): “12.2. Since the restoration of its independence, Latvia has developed a social security system which applies to all persons who were resident in Latvia on 1 January 1991. The collapse of the USSR and the restoration of the Latvian State gave rise to considerable difficulties. During the occupation, the State and social budgets were controlled by the USSR State Bank. After the collapse of the USSR, those resources were not shared; they remained the property of the Russian Federation. Therefore, Latvia decided to ensure a minimum pension for all the inhabitants of Latvia. Pursuant to the disputed provision, periods of work accrued within the territory of Latvia are taken into consideration when calculating pensions for both citizens and [“permanently resident non-citizens”]. The legislature chose this particular regulatory framework because, in fact, this was the same administrative territory, with the same body of inhabitants, that Latvia “inherited” when it restored its independence. Furthermore, it could be considered that during the periods preceding 31 December 1991 when they worked within the territory of Latvia, the inhabitants had contributed to the national economy and the development of Latvia. 12.3. When devising the new pension system, it was decided that, in addition to the minimum pension already awarded, periods of work which had been accrued outside the territory of Latvia would be included in everyone’s insurance period. Latvian citizens were credited with a broader range of work periods accrued outside the territory of Latvia for inclusion in the insurance period, as compared to [“permanently resident non-citizens”], aliens and stateless persons. When assessing the periods which the legislature has chosen to count towards the length of the insurance periods for [“permanently resident non-citizens”], it can be seen that these are the periods during which [“permanently resident non-citizens”] acquired education or upgraded their qualifications so that they would later contribute to the development of the Latvian national economy, as well as those periods during which politically persecuted persons were held in custody, were resettled or were deported because they were regarded as opponents of the occupying regime. Accordingly, in creating its pension system the State exercised its margin of appreciation and took into account its citizens’ special link with the State, as well as the contribution their predecessors had made to the development of the national economy. The inclusion of certain periods of work accrued outside the territory of Latvia towards the insurance period for [“permanently resident non-citizens”] can be regarded as a manifestation of good will by the restored State (see also Epstein and Others v. Belgium (dec.), no. 9717/05, 8 January 2008). 13. As a result of the Soviet occupation in June 1940, Latvia not only lost its independence but also experienced mass deportations, killings of its inhabitants and an influx of Russian-speaking immigrants. On 25 March 1949 2.3% of the inhabitants of Latvia were deported – that is, about three times as many people as in the deportation of 14 June 1941. After the Second World War mass immigration into Latvia of USSR citizens occurred ... After the restoration of independence, the legislature had to decide how to establish the body of Latvian citizens. In view of the continuity of Latvia as a subject of 14