SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS adopted on 4 December 2018, §§ 55-56, quoted in paragraph 88 of the present judgment). The presence in Latvia of those who would become non-citizens was primarily a result of the vicissitudes of history. When they came to live in Latvia, the territory was part of the Soviet Union and it is uncontested that, following the Soviet annexation in 1940 and unlawful occupation since then, the authorities relentlessly pursued a semi-official policy of Russification (see the recent report of the Venice Commission on amendments to the legislation on education in minority languages in Latvia, 18 June 2020, CDL-AD(2020)012; see also paragraph 17 below). Representative of other non-citizens, “some of [the applicants] arrived at a young age, others shortly before the restoration of Latvia’s independence in 1990-91” (see paragraph 18 of the present judgment). They all continued to build their lives in Latvia after the restoration of Latvia’s independence. They were at all times, and still are, lawful residents of Latvia. Indeed, to borrow the words of another Court judgment regarding non-citizens, Latvia is the country “where they had developed ... the network of personal, social and economic relations that make up the private life of every human being” (see Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 96, ECHR 2003-X). 3. Like Andrejeva v. Latvia, the present case is about the treatment reserved to permanently resident non-citizens in relation to their retirement pensions under the State Pensions Act of 1995. While, as a rule, the amount of the pension is based on the period during which the entitled person, the employer, or both have paid contributions to the pension system (see paragraph 65 of the judgment), years of employment under the Soviet regime, for which evidently no contributions were paid to the as yet unestablished Latvian pension system, are, under certain conditions, taken into account as well. These conditions are set out in paragraph 1 of the transitional provisions of the Act (see paragraphs 66-67 of the present judgment). We agree with the majority that, “from the point of view of Convention law”, there would be no objection “to a policy generally excluding periods of employment accrued while individuals were residing and working outside the Latvian territory” (see paragraph 201 of the present judgment). However, when establishing its pension scheme in 1995, Latvia took the decision to take such periods of work into account. Although Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not include the right to receive a social-security payment of any kind, if a State does decide to create a benefits scheme, it must do so in a manner which is compatible with Article 14 (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 55, ECHR 2005-X, quoted in Andrejeva, cited above, § 79, in turn quoted in paragraph 121 of the present judgment). Paragraph 1 of the transitional provisions lists twelve periods equivalent to employment. For citizens, periods of employment and all twelve equivalent 76