SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS commitment by Latvia “to pay pensions to individuals in respect of periods of employment outside its territory”, undertaken “of its own accord” (Andrejeva, cited above, § 78; see also paragraph 203 of the present judgment). The applicants, like Ms Andrejeva, are not alleging a violation of a pecuniary right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone. Their complaint concerns a difference in treatment prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention; if the State concerned decided, despite everything, to pay retirement pensions in respect of periods of employment outside national territory, it should do so without any discrimination (ibid., �� 54; see paragraph 3 above). 13. The majority consider that the essential point in relation to this first legitimate aim relied on is the need to protect the constitutional foundation of Latvia following the restoration of independence. The impugned difference in treatment, seen in this context and in relation to the doctrine of State continuity, was “to avoid retrospective approbation of the consequences of the immigration policy practiced in the period of unlawful occupation and annexation of the country” (see paragraph 198 of the present judgment). We can agree with the majority’s assessment that this could be regarded as a legitimate aim (ibid.). Still, the allocation of pension supplements seems to us far from being a natural instrument for regulating issues relating to a State’s constitutional foundation (see paragraph 24 below). The question thus is whether the pursuit of this aim can go as far as to deny advantages to any and all individuals who took up residence in Latvia as a consequence of the immigration policy practiced by the Soviet Union. This question is something we will consider below under the proportionality requirement (see paragraphs 17 and 24 below). VI. PROTECTION OF THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM OF THE COUNTRY 14. The majority also accept that the protection of the country’s economic system is a legitimate aim (see paragraph 198 of the judgment). We agree with that assessment, which is in line with Andrejeva (cited above, § 86). It should be noted, however, that this aim was linked to the challenges faced by Latvia after the restoration of its independence, when it had to set up a viable social-security system and had only a limited national budget (ibid.). It remains to be seen whether these challenges were still sufficiently serious almost twenty years later when the Constitutional Court declined to apply Andrejeva and thereafter. This is again a question which we will consider under the proportionality requirement (see paragraph 25 below). The proportionality of the difference in treatment 15. When assessing the proportionality of the denial of the same pension advantages to the permanently resident non-citizens, the majority take into 82