ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 23 paragraph 54 above). She thus disputed the assertion that responsibility in her case rested with Russia or Ukraine. She further pointed out that Russia had never unilaterally paid her a pension or acknowledged its obligation to do so. In any event, before 1991, Latvia, Russia and Ukraine had formed part of the same State, the Soviet Union, and the taxes paid in respect of each employee had not been linked to any particular territorial unit of the USSR. The applicant therefore disputed that any territorial criterion could be applied in relation to that period. 60. The applicant acknowledged that during the Soviet era, the socialinsurance system had been non-contributory and based on the principle of solidarity. However, regard being had to the Court’s relevant case-law as it stood – the applicant cited, in particular, Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom ((dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X) – that fact was immaterial. Moreover, the exclusion of benefits financed from general tax revenues would disregard the fact that many beneficiaries under that type of system also contributed to its funding through the taxes they paid. In short, whether the benefit in question was contributory or not, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was applicable to it without distinction. 61. The applicant further pointed out that she had first come to Latvia at the age of 12 and had spent all her working life there, and that her employment during the Soviet era had involved protection of Latvia’s environment. However, the amount of the retirement pension she received was considerably lower than the amount that a Latvian citizen in the same position would receive. Nationality was therefore the sole criterion for the distinction in issue, which had no objective and reasonable justification. Firstly, the applicant pointed out that her former employers had paid social tax to the Soviet tax authorities on her behalf, on the same basis as for those who had been recognised as Latvian citizens after 1991. Had the Soviet Union not broken up, she would receive, just like them, a monthly pension of 97.50 Soviet roubles, paid from the USSR central budget. Secondly, she pointed out that the difference in treatment complained of had not existed before 1 January 1996; it had been introduced only by the State Pensions Act 1995, and no reasons had been given for this change in the law, even by the members of parliament who had proposed it. 62. Thirdly, the applicant submitted that the interpretation of the abovementioned Act by the Senate of the Supreme Court, as a result of which she was deemed not to have worked “in Latvia” during a period of seventeen years, was manifestly unreasonable. Before 2002 the State Pensions Act had not included any definition of the concept of “aggregate periods of employment in Latvia”. The social services had decided to interpret it restrictively, and the judges of the Supreme Court had endorsed that arbitrary interpretation. The applicant emphasised that during the period from 1966 to 1991 neither her workplace nor the nature of her work, nor even the trade union to which she had been affiliated, had changed.