SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE WOJTYCZEK I fully agree with both the outcome and the main line of the reasoning in the instant case. I should merely like to note that the reasoning of the Court becomes even more persuasive if it is viewed from the broader perspective of international law. The relevant international-law context has been explained in detail in the brilliant and powerful dissenting opinion of Judge Ziemele in the case of Andrejeva v. Latvia ([GC], no. 55707/00, ECHR 2009). I note, in particular, the following conclusion formulated by her (in point 25 of her opinion): “In sum, there was no obligation under international law to take any responsibility for the years of employment accrued under the Soviet Union unless and until this was agreed through inter-State negotiations. However, in the special context of illegal annexation (see point 26 below), citizens of the injured State had a strong expectation that they would not have to suffer any more than they already had and that this might as well translate into their right to pension advantages. In other words, there is nothing unreasonable in the fact that after long years spent under an unlawful totalitarian regime the independent legislature decided to reward the citizens.” I agree with this, and with the other views expressed by Judge Ziemele in her dissenting opinion. It is not necessary to add anything here, as everything has been said there, and has been said so well. 74