SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS Constitutional Court tried to distinguish the facts of both cases (see paragraph 4 above), gave the Andrejeva judgment a very narrow reading (as has been noted by ECRI in its report on Latvia of 9 December 2011, § 130, quoted in paragraph 87 of the judgment), and then reaffirmed its previous finding of 26 June 2001 (for a short summary of the 2001 judgment, see paragraph 39 of the present judgment). It thus reaffirmed the compatibility of the impugned pension legislation with the principle of non-discrimination, notwithstanding the fact that the Strasbourg Court had found a violation of Article 14 of the Convention. The majority have decided to follow the Constitutional Court, thus disavowing the conclusion reached by this Court in Andrejeva. This is surprising since, as acknowledged by the majority, the Court “should not depart, without good reason, from precedents laid down in previous cases” (see paragraph 202 of the judgment). For the reasons explained below, we consider that the second legitimate aim now invoked by the Government to justify the difference in treatment between citizens and permanently resident non-citizens (the constitutional identity argument based on the State continuity doctrine, developed at length by the Constitutional Court in its 2011 judgment) does not provide a sufficient or good reason to overturn a judgment adopted in 2009 by a majority of 16 against 1. 6. The applicants filed their application in 2011. It would quite clearly have been preferable if this case had been decided much earlier. Unfortunately, the prioritisation policy of the Court as well as its lack of resources delayed the examination of the case. The hearing and first deliberations finally took place on 26 May 2021. When the Grand Chamber deliberated for a second time on 2 March 2022, the geopolitical situation in the region and in Europe had changed dramatically. The current events obviously do not have an influence on the outcome of the case. They illustrate, however, how acutely sensitive the relations between different communities in a given State may be. We are fully aware both of the importance of this case and of its sensitivity, which transcend the national borders of Latvia. III. ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION: GENERAL PRINCIPLES 7. We are satisfied that the majority confirm Andrejeva and other well-established case-law with respect to the applicability of Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, to the impugned legislation, which provides for the payment as of right of a pension (see paragraphs 119-22 of the present judgment). On the merits, we are not in essence in disagreement with the majority so far as the applicable principles are concerned. In particular, we fully agree with the four-step analysis which the majority consider it necessary to undertake (grounds for the difference in treatment; relevantly similar 78