30 ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 83. Similarly, a wide margin of appreciation is usually allowed to the State under the Convention when it comes to general measures of economic or social strategy. Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature’s policy choice unless it is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” (see, for example, National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 80, Reports 1997-VII, and the Grand Chamber judgment in Stec and Others, cited above, § 52). In more general terms, the Court has held that the provisions of the Convention do not prevent Contracting States from introducing general policy schemes by way of legislative measures whereby a certain category or group of individuals is treated differently from others, provided that the interference with the rights of the statutory category or group as a whole can be justified under the Convention (see Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 112, ECHR 2006-IV). 84. Lastly, as to the burden of proof in relation to Article 14 of the Convention, the Court has held that once the applicant has shown a difference in treatment, it is for the Government to show that it was justified (see D.H. and Others, cited above, § 177). 85. In the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes at the outset that in their respective judgments of 4 May and 6 October 1999 the Riga Regional Court and the Senate of the Supreme Court found that the fact of having worked for an entity established outside Latvia despite having been physically in Latvian territory did not constitute “employment within the territory of Latvia” within the meaning of the State Pensions Act. The parties disagreed as to whether at that time such an interpretation could have appeared reasonable or whether, on the contrary, it was manifestly arbitrary, particularly as no regulatory instrument had contained an interpretation of the provision in issue until 2002 (see paragraphs 36 and 62 above). Having regard to the conclusions set out below, the Court does not consider it necessary to determine this issue separately. 86. The Court accepts that the difference in treatment complained of pursues at least one legitimate aim that is broadly compatible with the general objectives of the Convention, namely the protection of the country’s economic system. It is undisputed that after the restoration of Latvia’s independence and the subsequent break-up of the USSR, the Latvian authorities were confronted with an abundance of problems linked to both the need to set up a viable social security system and the reduced capacity of the national budget. Furthermore, the fact that the provision in issue was not introduced until 1995, four years after Latvia’s independence had been fully restored, is not decisive in the instant case. It is not surprising that a newly