SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS which touch on its constitutional identity (see, for example, Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, ECHR 2006-IV, on disqualification for standing for election to the national parliament, or Petropavlovskis v. Latvia, no. 44230/06, ECHR 2015, on the refusal of Latvian citizenship to a noncitizen who was a political activist). It is difficult to justify the same deference and the consequent widening of the margin and lowering of judicial scrutiny with reference to the impugned pension supplement. The majority, it seems to us, also proceed on the basis that the Grand Chamber in 2009 was unaware of the State continuity arguments which the Constitutional Court emphasised in its 2011 judgment, when it is clear from the (sole) dissenting opinion in Andrejeva that the latter had been discussed extensively. It seems likely to us that our predecessors in 2009 were much more mindful of the challenges facing a transitional democracy following the restoration of independence than they are being given credit. Furthermore, Europe knows only too well by now how some States may misuse or instrumentalise arguments relating to their constitutional identity for a variety of purposes. VIII. FACTOR RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM 25. With respect to the second aim pursued, the majority refer to the “particular difficulties and the complex policy choices facing the Latvian authorities after the restoration of independence”. The legislature had to determine the scope of eligible periods of employment, which inevitably would have an impact on the level of the benefits and the contributions required to fund them. The majority refer to a “wide” margin of appreciation that the domestic authorities must generally enjoy when deciding on trade-offs in social welfare systems (see paragraph 218 of the present judgment). We are fully aware of the difficulties faced at the time by the Latvian State (see also Andrejeva, cited above, § 86). However, we would like to reiterate that the difference in treatment between citizens and permanently resident non-citizens concerns not the basic pension benefits but a supplement to them. While the trade-offs referred to by the majority might have been highly relevant at the time for the regulation of the basic pension benefits, the decision to award the supplement was based on considerations that had little or nothing to do with a financial calculation. In any event, by 2011, when the Constitutional Court handed down its judgment in the applicants’ case and refused to apply Andrejeva, Latvia had become a fully integrated and economically successful Member State of the European Union and an important member of the broader community of European States committed to democracy, respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law. It seems obvious to us that the argument relating to the problems faced during the period of transition, already rejected once, could 88