SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 57. The Latvian authorities underlined that instead of making the “non-citizen” status more equal to that of citizens, it is their stated aim to eventually abolish this category by promoting and facilitating naturalisations ... ... 59. Further steps taken by the authorities to promote the naturalisations of “non-citizens” include information-days organised in municipalities with a high proportion of “non-citizens” among the residents, during which details of the naturalisation process are explained. The authorities, through the Society Integration Fund, also provide free Latvian language classes for “non-citizens” in preparation for their naturalisation exams, as recommended by ECRI in its last report. While ECRI commends the authorities for this measure, it also received information that these language classes, at times, fill up very quickly, resulting in insufficient capacity for all “non-citizens” who wish to enrol. This problem might grow, if the authorities’ efforts to promote naturalisation are successful. 60. ECRI recommends that the authorities ensure that sufficient places are available for “non-citizens” wishing to enrol in Latvian language courses free of charge in preparation for their naturalisation exams.” C. The Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) 89. The Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM), second opinion on Latvia, adopted on 18 June 2013, includes the following assessment (footnotes omitted): “139. The Advisory Committee further notes research pointing to differences among ethnic groups also with regard to access to social services, mainly due to the fact that Latvians are better informed of their rights and have the relevant networks to insist on obtaining the social assistance that is available. It refers in this context in particular to the large elderly population among national minorities that still faces considerable language barriers. Regarding access to pensions, the Advisory Committee regrets that the 2009 Andrejeva judgment of the [Court] has not led to a comprehensive solution regarding the calculation of pensions of citizens and “non-citizens”. It notes the Government’s view that the judgment has been implemented by signing bilateral agreements with the Russian Federation and a number of other countries in which “non-citizens” spent periods of employment under the Soviet Union, but remains concerned by the fact that these agreements do not cover all former republics of the Soviet Union and are therefore not suitable to address the situation vis-à-vis all “non-citizens”.” 32