SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS citizens only (see also Article 8 of the European Convention on Social Security). Entitlement to non-contributory benefits may of course be made conditional on the beneficiary having resided for a certain minimum period of time in the territory of the State concerned or on the fulfilment of other statutory conditions (see also the reference to the preamble of the Social Security Convention in paragraph 9 of the dissenting opinion of Judge Seibert-Fohr et al.). The permanently resident non-citizens are lawful residents in Latvia. They arrived in Latvia many decades ago now, before the restoration of Latvia’s independence in 1991. During all their years of residence in Latvia, they inevitably built ties with the country they were living in (see paragraph 2 above). Indeed, the recognition in Andrejeva, confirmed in the present judgment, that they are similarly situated derives from the very fact of their extensive ties. 21. The third factor taken into account by the majority is the fact that the difference in treatment complained of “only” concerned periods of employment completed prior to the introduction of the pension scheme in question (that is: during “the five decades of unlawful occupation and annexation”) and outside Latvia, “before [the applicants] settled in Latvia or had any other links with that country” (see paragraph 216 of the present judgment). It is only natural that the pension benefits are based on periods of employment completed prior to the moment when the applicants became eligible for them. That is in the nature of an old-age pension. What counts is that the pension scheme has been set up by the Latvian legislature, after the restoration of Latvia’s independence, and that the applicants are undergoing the effects of the impugned difference in treatment ever since they became eligible for their pension benefits, that is, after the restoration of Latvia’s independence and after having resided for respectively 31, 59, 21 and 18 years in Latvia and having worked there (see paragraphs 21-22, 25-27, 29-30 and 34-35 of the judgment). Whatever difference there was between the applicants before their arrival in Latvia and the residents of Latvia during that period, it is the applicants’ situation under the State Pensions Act, after the restoration of Latvia’s independence and after their settlement in Latvia, that is the object of their complaint (compare Kurić and Others, cited above, § 391). 22. In this context, we note that the majority purport to compare the situation of the applicants to that of the Gurkha soldiers in the case of British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 44818/11, 15 September 2016), in which the Court found no violation of Article 14 of the Convention. We do not see any similarity, to the contrary. It is true that the Gurkha soldiers had served in the British Army and were treated differently than other serving soldiers. More specifically, for the calculation of their military pension, the years served before 1 July 1997 were 86