ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 11 Paragraph 3 “Expenses incurred in connection with the reckoning of the periods referred to in [paragraph 1 of] these transitional provisions in the calculation of State pensions shall be covered by the special State pension budget.” Paragraph 7 “The following shall be deemed to constitute evidence of periods of employment during the transitional period: (1) an employment record [darba grāmatiņa]; (2) a record of employment contracts [darba līgumu grāmatiņa]; (3) a document certifying payment of social-insurance contributions; (4) any other evidence of periods of employment (such as certificates, contracts of employment or documents certifying performance of work).” 36. In order to clarify the application of the provisions cited above, on 23 April 2002 the Cabinet adopted a set of rules (no. 165) on the procedure for certifying, calculating and monitoring insurance periods (Apdrošināšanas periodu pierādīšanas, aprēķināšanas un uzskaites kārtība). Rule 21 of the rules states that any work carried out for entities situated in Latvian territory is to be treated as “employment in Latvia”. 4. The Constitutional Court’s judgment of 26 June 2001 37. On 20 February 2001 twenty members of parliament applied to the Constitutional Court (Satversmes tiesa), seeking a ruling that paragraph 1 of the transitional provisions of the State Pensions Act, which made a distinction on the ground of nationality, was incompatible with Articles 91 and 109 of the Constitution and Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In a judgment of 26 June 2001 (case no. 2001-02-0106), the Constitutional Court held that there had been no breach of the provisions cited. It made the following observations, in particular: “... [T]he applicants’ authorised representative ... argues that, in view of their legal status, non-citizens are not connected to any State other than Latvia; accordingly, they are not able to exercise individually their right to social security ... The representative ... further submits that the distinction established in the provision in issue is not based on any economic or social factors; that, furthermore, the distinction is not founded on the legal status of citizens and non-citizens, as defined in Latvian legislation; and that the above argument is corroborated in particular by the fact that, once they are granted citizenship by means of naturalisation, non-citizens automatically become entitled to social security in respect of their years of employment outside Latvia. ...