SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS periods accrued in the territory of Latvia and of the former Soviet Union are to be counted. For “foreign nationals, stateless persons and non-citizens of Latvia”, periods of employment and all twelve equivalent periods accrued in the territory of Latvia are to be counted, as they are for citizens. By contrast, for these three categories of persons, only three out of the twelve equivalent periods are to be counted where they were accrued in another territory of the former Soviet Union. Compared to foreign nationals, stateless persons and permanently resident non-citizens, citizens of Latvia thus receive a “supplement” (see the term used by the Government, paragraph 167 of the present judgment) for periods of employment and certain equivalent periods accrued outside the territory of Latvia. The question raised by the application is whether the denial of this “supplement” to the applicant non-citizens can be justified or whether it constitutes discrimination based exclusively on grounds of nationality. 4. The situation of the applicants in the present case is similar to that of the applicant in the Andrejeva case. Ms Andrejeva was born in Kazakhstan and came to Latvia in 1954, at the age of 12. She was permanently resident there ever since (Andrejeva, cited above, § 10). In the present case, the second applicant was born in Azerbaijan and came to Latvia in 1968, at the age of 30; the third applicant was born in Russia and came to Latvia in 1951, at the age of 3; the fourth applicant was born in Uzbekistan and came to Latvia in 1987, at the age of 41; the fifth applicant was born in Russia and came to Latvia in 1987, at the age of 44 (see paragraphs 21, 25, 29 and 34 of the judgment). The applicants thus arrived in Latvia either as a child (third applicant) or in the middle of their professional lives (second, fourth and fifth applicant). The Constitutional Court, in its judgment of 17 February 2011, tried to distinguish the situation of the applicants from that of Ms Andrejeva. While they had all worked for enterprises placed under the authority of the Soviet Union or another Soviet Republic, Ms Andrejeva had worked for a department located in the territory of Latvia, in contrast to the applicants who had worked outside that territory (judgment of the Constitutional Court of 17 February 2011, § 9, quoted in paragraph 51 of the present judgment). However, the fact that Ms Andrejeva was employed by a Soviet company which was also physically present in Latvian territory was explicitly considered not decisive (see Andrejeva, cited above, § 85, as well as §§ 15 and 53 of that judgment, demonstrating on what basis the pension had been refused and on what basis the respondent State had pleaded the case) (see also paragraph 1 of the dissenting opinion of Judge Seibert-Fohr et al.). 5. The reason why this case is brought again before the Grand Chamber is the reaction of the Constitutional Court to the Andrejeva judgment (judgment of the Constitutional Court of 17 February 2011, summarised and quoted in paragraphs 49-59 of the present judgment). Rather than recognising the need for the State to implement the Andrejeva judgment, the 77