SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT The continuity of Latvia as a subject of international law was emphasised in the Declaration [“On the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia”, adopted on 4 May 1990 by the Supreme Council of the Latvian SSR]. Its Preamble notes that the incorporation of the Republic of Latvia into the Soviet Union was null and void from the perspective of international law and that the Republic of Latvia still existed de jure as a subject of international law. Establishing the doctrine of the continuity of the Latvian State in the Latvian legal system may be considered to be the main function of the Preamble to the Declaration ... 11.2. A State’s legal identity determines its rights and obligations. In determining a State’s legal identity it must be noted, and recognised, that the illegal annexation of a State, or part thereof, into other State has no effect in legal terms. ... According to the principle ex injuria ius non oritur, States or parts thereof can join other States on a voluntary basis only, complying with the procedures established by international and national law ... 11.3 The doctrine of State continuity directly influences the State’s actions, not only in the area of international law, where it continues to comply with the obligations undertaken prior to the de facto termination of its independence and does not assume the international obligations of the State of which it formerly unlawfully formed part, but also in internal affairs. The acts of the illegally established public authorities of the other State in the field of public law are not binding on the State which has restored its independence. ... To claim or to imply indirectly that Latvia has any automatic obligations based on the Soviet period would be tantamount to denying the fact of the unlawful occupation and annexation of Latvia within the meaning of international law and would be contrary to the principle ex injuria ius non oritur and the obligation of non-recognition established in international law (see the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Ziemele in the case of Andrejeva v. Latvia, paragraph 22). Accordingly, the Republic of Latvia is not a successor to the rights and obligations of the former USSR and, in accordance with the doctrine of State continuity, the restored State is not required to undertake any obligations emanating from the obligations of the occupying State.” 54. The Constitutional Court then noted that a difference in treatment in the sphere of social rights was based on the idea that the State had to assume particular responsibility for its citizens. Some social rights could only be ensured partially and an absolute application of the prohibition of discrimination could have serious financial consequences. The mere fact that a person did not enjoy certain social rights did not violate his or her fundamental rights, as a violation would only be caused if this restriction was without sufficient justification. Referring to the Court’s decision in Janković v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X), the Constitutional Court noted that the State enjoyed a margin of appreciation of granting privileges to those persons that it deemed appropriate in view of the particular circumstances. The Convention did not prevent the Contracting Parties from introducing measures that treated certain groups of people differently, in so far as this interference could be justified under the Convention. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights also showed that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 did not guarantee the right to a pension of a specific amount, instead calling for a determination of whether the essence of the right to receive the 13