SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT
105. The Court notes that it has itself repeatedly referred to the version of
historical events as described above in the “Facts” part of its judgments and
decisions in cases against the three Baltic States (see Kolk and Kislyiy
v. Estonia (dec.), nos. 23052/04 and 24018/04, ECHR 2006-I; Penart
v. Estonia (dec.), nos. 14685/04, 24 January 2006; Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC]
(no. 58278/00, §§ 12-13, ECHR 2006-IV); Kuolelis and Others v. Lithuania
(nos. 74357/01 and 2 others, § 8, 19 February 2008); Vasiliauskas, cited
above, §§ 11-14; and Sõro v. Estonia (no. 22588/08, § 6, 3 September 2015).
Moreover, in one case, the Court itself defined the situation of Latvia (and
therefore of all three Baltic States) as “unlawful occupation” (see Likvidējamā
p/s Selga and Vasiļevska v. Latvia (dec.), nos. 17126/02 and 24991/02, § 5,
1 October 2013). Finally, the European Commission of Human Rights clearly
stated that “Lithuania [could not] be seen as a successor of the Soviet Union
in respect of ... debts [arising from fixed term internal state bonds] and ha[d]
not made any legal undertaking to compensate those of its citizens who [were]
holders of the bonds” (see the Commission decision in Jasinskij v. Lithuania
((dec.), no. 38985/97, 9 September 1998).
106. The Court perceives no reason to depart from this assessment of the
relevant historical facts as consistently described in its earlier judgments and
decisions, especially since, so far as the Court can see, it corresponds to the
general stance of the majority of the free democratic States of the world
during the Cold War, as defined and summarised by the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament (see
paragraphs 84-86 above). It agrees with the respondent Government that this
doctrine is prima facie relevant in the circumstances of the present case;
accordingly, it will be duly taken into account when deciding on the merits
of the application.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION,
READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
TO THE CONVENTION
107. The applicants complained that, due to their status as “permanently
resident non-citizens”, the employment and equivalent periods which they
had accrued prior to 1991 outside the territory of Latvia in other parts of the
former USSR had not been included in the calculation of the “insurance
period” used as a reference in determining the amount of their retirement
pensions and eligibility for an early retirement pension. Accordingly, they
had been treated less favourably than citizens of Latvia, in breach of
Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1. In so far as relevant, those provisions read as follows:
38