SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT Latvia, despite having been physically in Latvian territory, had not constituted “employment within the territory of Latvia” was reasonable or, on the contrary, manifestly arbitrary (see Andrejeva, cited above, § 85). The Court then accepted that the difference in treatment pursued at least one legitimate aim, namely the protection of the country’s economic system (ibid., § 86) and then noted that the national authorities’ refusal to take into account the years of the applicants’ employment “outside Latvia” had been based exclusively on the consideration that she had not had Latvian citizenship. Therefore, the Court concluded that nationality had been the sole criterion for the distinction complained of (ibid., § 87). 42. Relying on the judgments in Gaygusuz v. Austria (16 September 1996, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV), and Koua Poirrez v. France (no. 40892/98, § 46, ECHR 2003-X), the Court reiterated that very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before it could regard a difference of treatment based exclusively on the ground of nationality as compatible with the Convention. No such reasons could be discerned in the Andrejeva case. Firstly, it had not been alleged that the applicant had not satisfied the other statutory conditions entitling her to a pension in respect of all her years of employment. She had therefore been in an objectively similar situation to persons who had had an identical or similar career involving periods of employment outside Latvian territory but who, after 1991, had been recognised as Latvian citizens. Secondly, there was no evidence that during the Soviet era there had been any difference in treatment between nationals of the former USSR as regards pensions. Thirdly, the applicant was not a national of any State. She had the status of a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia, the only State with which she had any stable legal ties and thus the only State which, objectively, could assume responsibility for her in terms of social security (ibid., § 88). Accordingly, the Court was not satisfied that there was a “reasonable relationship of proportionality” rendering the impugned difference of treatment compatible with the requirements of Article 14 of the Convention (ibid., § 89). 43. Additionally, while the Court acknowledged the importance of the bilateral inter-State agreements on social security in the effective solution of problems such as those arising in the case before it, it noted that the Latvian State could not be absolved of its responsibility under Article 14 of the Convention on the ground that it was not bound by inter-State agreements on social security (ibid., § 90). Finally, the Court rejected the Government’s argument that it would be sufficient for the applicant to become a naturalised Latvian citizen in order to receive the full amount of the pension claimed. Dismissing the victim’s claims on the ground that he or she could have avoided the discrimination by altering one of the factors listed in Article 14 – for example, by acquiring a nationality – would render that provision devoid of substance (ibid., § 91). Accordingly, the Court found a violation of 9