SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT In particular, even though Ms Andrejeva had been an employee of a Soviet enterprise, the regional department where she was physically present during her work had been located in Latvia. In contrast, in the case at hand the applicants had been working outside the Latvian territory for periods of considerable length over which time they could not have acquired legal ties with Latvia. 51. The relevant part of the Constitutional Court’s reasoning reads as follows: “9. ... The factual circumstances in the case of Andrejeva v. Latvia and in the present case put before the Constitutional Court differ considerably. In particular, Ms N. Andrejeva lived in Latvia from 1954 onwards and was an employee of an enterprise that was placed under the authority of the central government of the USSR, that is, an all-Union enterprise; the regional department where she worked was nonetheless located in the territory of Latvia. However, the total length of the insurance period for the [first] applicant is 37.2 years, of which 21.3 years (57 percent) was worked outside the territory of Latvia. [The fifth applicant] worked outside the territory of Latvia for 21.4 years (68 percent) of the total length of her insurance period (31.4 years). [The fourth applicant] accrued 21.8 years (52 percent) of the total length of her insurance period (41.7 years) outside Latvia, whilst [the second applicant] [accrued outside Latvia] 12 years (28 percent) of the total length of his insurance period (42.1 years). The Constitutional Court has no information that the above-mentioned applicants had only formally been employees of the enterprises placed under the authority of other Republics of the USSR but had in reality resided and worked in the territory of Latvia, as was the case for Ms N. Andrejeva. Consequently, during these periods, no legal ties could have formed between them and Latvia.” 52. Relying, inter alia, on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court emphasised the wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by the States in creating their social security schemes, including pension schemes. Further, relying on such cases as Jasinskij v. Lithuania ((dec.), no. 38985/97, 9 September 1998); Kuna v. Germany ((dec.), no. 52449/99, 10 April 2001); Kireev v. Moldova and Russia ((dec.), no. 11375/05, 1 July 2008); Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia ([GC], nos. 44574/98 and 2 others, § 256, 3 October 2008); and Si Amer v. France (no. 29137/06, 29 October 2009), the Constitutional Court noted that the Court had indeed paid due regard to considerations of the State succession and continuity of legal obligations. 53. The Constitutional Court continued (emphasis as in the original): “11.1. ... On 18 November 1918 the People’s Council of Latvia proclaimed the Republic of Latvia as an independent State. Latvia and the other Baltic States lost their independence de facto in 1940 when the USSR occupied Latvia in breach of international law. Latvia’s independence was restored in 1990, based on the doctrine of State continuity. If a State in respect of which independence was discontinued unlawfully restores its statehood on the basis of the doctrine of State continuity, it is entitled to recognise itself as the same State as that which was unlawfully liquidated ... 12