SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS decades of occupation to the native Latvian population and the challenges which ensued following the restoration of independence. The tragic events unfolding in Europe at present highlight the existence of further possible challenges ahead. However, the fact remains that it was the Soviet Union, a State acting through its organs, which was responsible for the immigration policy. In this respect, it has not been contested by the respondent Government that Soviet citizens at the time travelled all over the territory of the USSR, often not by their own choice but as a result of compulsory job placement by the State authorities. We see no reason why the applicants should be blamed for having acted in conformity with the Soviet immigration policy. The problem with the impugned difference in treatment between citizens and permanently resident non-citizens is that it attributes the unlawful acts of the Soviet Union to all former citizens of the Soviet Union who moved to Latvia during its occupation, irrespective of the extent to which these individuals personally bore responsibility for the fact that they settled in Latvia. In our opinion, it cannot therefore be assumed that all former Soviet citizens, simply because of their nationality, had participated in unlawful acts against Latvia (compare Ribać, cited above, §§ 63-64). The impugned legislation amounts to considering that everyone who happened to be born as a (non-Latvian) citizen of the former Soviet Union has certain “original sins”, which may call for the denial of certain advantages granted to citizens of Latvia. We find this assumption difficult to reconcile with the idea that everyone has individual rights and individual responsibilities (see also paragraph 6 of the dissenting opinion of Judge Seibert-Fohr et al.). 18. Secondly, the majority point to the fact that permanently resident non-citizens “could obtain Latvian citizenship or choose another State with which to establish legal ties” (see paragraph 215 of the present judgment). They consider this “element of personal choice” of significance, “especially in so far as privileges, entitlements and financial benefits are at stake” (ibid.). For the majority, “the choice between remaining a ‘permanently resident non-citizen’ and acceding to citizenship is largely a matter of personal aspiration rather than an immutable situation, especially in the light of the considerable time-frame available to the applicants to exercise that option” (ibid.). Without explicitly acknowledging it, the majority thus depart from the simple but compelling logic of the Andrejeva judgment. There, the Court held that “[it could not] accept 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. The prohibition of discrimination enshrined in Article 14 of the Convention is meaningful only if, in each particular case, the applicant’s personal situation in relation to the criteria listed in that provision is taken into account exactly as it 84