SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS Latvia were both chronologically and geographically incapable of creating a link between those persons and the respondent State, this applies equally to Latvian citizens. During these periods, Latvians working outside Latvia did not contribute any more or less to the Latvian economy than non-nationals. Thus, pre-existing ties linking citizens to Latvia throughout the period of occupation and annexation are not capable of justifying the difference in treatment arising from the exclusion of the impugned periods for the purpose of calculating the retirement pensions of permanently resident non-citizens. Taking into account that the applicants contributed to the pension scheme as permanent residents, the relevant period for establishing the above-mentioned link between potential recipients and the benefits sought is not the period of occupation, but the periods during which the applicants worked in Latvia and paid contributions to the system. 14. This point is even more relevant in that naturalised citizens benefit from the impugned periods, irrespective of their previous ties to Latvia. The Government argue that it was possible for the applicants to avoid the impugned difference in treatment by obtaining Latvian citizenship. Taking this step prior to determination of their pensions would have eliminated the measure’s impact altogether, and even if taken subsequently it would have entitled them to a recalculation of their pension ex nunc. However, if the respondent State agrees that from the moment of naturalisation onwards the applicants would be treated in pension matters like Latvian citizens, this casts serious doubts on the objective necessity of the impugned difference for the purpose of implementing the respondent State’s continuity doctrine. It suggests instead that the difference in treatment is exclusively grounded in nationality, and not in the beneficiaries’ contribution to the economy and development of Latvia, as alleged by the Government. IV. CONCLUSION 15. In sum, the arguments put forward by the Latvian Constitutional Court to justify the impugned difference on the grounds of nationality do not amount to such “very weighty reasons” as required under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Justification for a difference in treatment directly based on nationality requires a closely tailored relationship between the aim pursued and the distinction made. In the present case, the distinction in question, based exclusively on nationality, was not tailored to the legitimate aim pursued. In the absence of a “reasonable relationship of proportionality” between the legitimate aims pursued and the means introduced by the Latvian legislature in the transitional provisions concerning the system of retirement pensions established in 1996, the Court should have found a violation of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 96