SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS and development more generally. Such contributions would establish a sufficient tie justifying distinctions. However, a distinction based exclusively on nationality is not tailored to this aim. Taking into account that the pension scheme is contribution-based, I cannot therefore accept the respondent State’s argument that the difference in treatment, which was based exclusively on nationality, can be explained by a State’s particular responsibility for its own citizens. According to the Preamble to the European Convention on Social Security (1972), the principle of equal treatment for nationals of the Contracting States applies also to stateless persons (and refugees) under their social-security legislation. III. THE TRANSITIONAL CONTEXT AND ITS RELEVANCE UNDER ARTICLE 14 10. I understand that the majority focus their finding on the particular circumstances of the case, in which the respondent State, faced with specific difficulties after a long period of occupation, established a pension system with limited resources. They explain the respondent State’s purportedly wide margin of appreciation as arising from the specific background to the impugned transitory measure, adopted in the context of fundamental changes and while the respondent State was in transition from a totalitarian regime after the restoration of independence (see paragraph 211 of the present judgment). The judgment refers to British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others, cited above). What is overlooked, however, is that in the latter case of indirect discrimination, the remedial nature of the impugned measures, which were intended to correct past inequalities in the British scheme, led the Court to accept a wide margin of appreciation (ibid, § 81). The only point which distinguished the applicants from other soldiers serving in the British army is that, as Gurkha, they accrued the right in respect of years of service prior to 1 July 1997 at actuarial value (ibid., § 77) rather than on a year-for-year basis. Nevertheless, the applicants accrued pension rights in respect of all years of service (like their British counterparts). Furthermore, the calculation on an actuarial basis was decided not because of their nationality, but because of the lower living expenses in their home countries. 11. The present case, which involves direct discrimination on the ground of nationality, is different. Not only is the beneficial treatment pursuant to the relevant statutory provision dependent on the applicant’s nationality, but the applicants – who worked in Latvia and have contributed to its pension scheme – incur the same living expenses as their co-workers who hold Latvian citizenship. In contrast to British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others, the difference in treatment does not result from a transitional measure forming part of a scheme carried out in order to correct an inequality. None of those seeking recognition for the work periods accrued outside Latvia has suffered from any injustice by the respondent State which the pension scheme 94