SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS above, § 88; see also Stec and Others, cited above, §§ 61-66; Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99, §§ 40-41, 10 May 2007; Ponomaryovi v. Bulgaria, no. 5335/05, § 52, ECHR 2011, with further references; and British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44818/11, § 81, 15 September 2016). In all other cases, very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference in treatment based exclusively on the grounds of nationality as compatible with the Convention (see Gaygusuz, § 42; Andrejeva, § 87; and Ribać, § 53, all cited above). B. The rationale of the “very weighty reason” requirement 6. The requirement for very weighty reasons in order to justify differences in treatment directly based on nationality is grounded in the idea that nationality should not be determinative for the enjoyment of the rights protected under the Convention. The Convention is based on a system of individual rights, which are not dependent on the fact that the individual belongs to a certain group or holds the nationality of a given State (for the same conclusion, see the other dissenting opinion, § 17). Under Article 14, where it is shown that there are reasonable and objective grounds for excluding an individual from a given scheme, the principle of proportionality comes into play (see Luczak, cited above, § 52). If the means employed to achieve the aim do not bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to it, then the distinction will be considered unjustified (see Ponomaryovi, cited above, § 51). For this reason, not every aim – however important in itself – can justify a distinction based exclusively on nationality. Instead, even in the socio-economic context such a distinction requires a substantial connection between the objective pursued and the classification. In other words, where a difference in treatment based directly on nationality exists with regard to benefits falling within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, States are not permitted to differentiate on the grounds of nationality if there is no valid link with the benefit sought and without having regard to whether the difference in treatment actually serves a very weighty reason and is necessary. Rather, the nationality requirement must correspond to the legitimate aim pursued in such cases. This requires a close link to the subject matter in question, and the difference in treatment must be tailored to the aim pursued. C. Criteria for assessing very weighty reasons in the social-economic context 7. Accordingly, the Convention does not prohibit States which fund or subsidise certain welfare benefits from requiring, in respect of non-nationals, a sufficiently close link between the recipients and the benefits sought. It may be legitimate to take into account the extent to which non-nationals have 92