ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION 41 PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ZIEMELE 1. To my regret, I cannot subscribe to the Grand Chamber’s finding of a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in this case. 2. Having restored its independence following fifty years of unlawful occupation, the Republic of Latvia created a pension system based on the principle of contributions. In view of the fact that no pension funds existed upon the restoration of independence, Latvia decided to guarantee a minimum pension to all residents, including the applicant, when they attained the retirement age provided for in law. This case is not about the basic pension; it is about the question whether Latvia is responsible for additional pension seniority accrued outside the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (Latvian SSR) during the days of the Soviet Union. In my opinion, the States responsible for this pension period are the Soviet Union and its successor, the Russian Federation, which collected the pension payments. 3. In addition, Latvia decided that, to the extent possible, it would also provide for pension entitlements taking into account the aggregate years of work in the Soviet Union. In this context, the Latvian legislature drew a distinction between two main situations as concerns individuals who had worked during the Soviet period: (i) it took entire responsibility for Latvian citizens irrespective of where they worked during that period; and (ii) it took responsibility for “foreign nationals and stateless persons” who had worked in the territory of the former Latvian SSR (see paragraph 35 of the judgment). Later, a category of “non-citizens” in Latvia, a special legal status created by law in 1995 pending the decision of Soviet-era settlers as to their nationality1, was added. As a result, stateless persons, foreigners and non-citizens who had worked for enterprises situated outside the Latvian SSR but resided in Latvia at the time when independence was restored fell outside the scope of this approach. The question before the Court is whether the transitional provisions of the State Pensions Act 1995 (see paragraph 35 of the judgment) concerning non-citizens were unreasonable and thus discriminatory in terms of the Convention. Summary of the main reasons 4. The majority, in their application of Article 14 together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the facts of the case and the observations of the parties, 1. According to the Constitutional Court of Latvia, the status of a “non-citizen” in Latvia cannot be compared to any legal status known in international-law documents. It is a special status created by national law in response to a special historical situation. In view of the range of rights that non-citizens have under national law, they cannot be equated with citizens, foreigners or stateless persons as commonly used in State practice (Case no. 200415-0106, 7 March 2005, §§ 15 et seq.).