26 ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT rules of 23 April 2002 (no. 165 – see paragraph 36 above) had merely confirmed the established practice regarding the interpretation of the provision in issue. Moreover, in its admissibility decision of 11 July 2006 in the instant case the Court itself had stated that “[t]he courts’ interpretation of the State Pensions Act in the instant case cannot be regarded as manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable”. The requirement of lawfulness had therefore been satisfied in the applicant’s case. 70. Even assuming that Article 14 of the Convention was applicable in the present case, the Government were persuaded that the difference in treatment complained of fell within the broad margin of appreciation enjoyed by States in regulating their social policy. They argued that the Court should take into account the particular context of the case, which was linked to the process of restoring Latvian independence, a process that had also included reform of social policy. The Latvian authorities had had to lay the foundations of the new social welfare system, including the old-age insurance scheme, and to set a limit on the expenditure which the Latvian budget could afford in relation to the former USSR’s social welfare payments. In that connection, the Government referred to the Constitutional Court’s conclusion that, in accordance with general international law on State succession, Latvia had assumed responsibility for periods worked in Latvian territory by any of the country’s permanent residents, regardless of nationality. 71. As regards periods of work elsewhere, the Government asserted that Latvia was under no obligation to assume responsibility for them. If, despite everything, it had decided to do so while reserving this additional guarantee to its own citizens, that decision could not be regarded as contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. In view of the financial burden borne by Latvia and the limited capacity of its national budget, it was not unreasonable for it to assume full responsibility for the pensions of its own citizens alone. Nevertheless, even though the applicant was not entitled to a retirement pension in respect of her periods of employment in “Russian” and “Ukrainian” enterprises, she received a range of social welfare benefits which compensated her for any such inconvenience and improved her standard of living. In short, the Government argued, the Latvian authorities had struck a balance between the public interest and the applicant’s private interests; there was thus a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. 72. In addition, the Government pointed out that unlike Mr Koua Poirrez, who had been refused French nationality, the applicant could become a naturalised Latvian citizen at any time. If she chose to do so, the dispute in the present case would automatically be settled through the recalculation of her pension. The recalculation would have effect ex nunc, but that was in no way contrary to the Convention, which did not impose any obligation on the Contracting States to grant rights retroactively. The