ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 31 established democratic legislature should need time for reflection in a period of political turmoil to enable it to consider what measures were required to ensure the country’s economic well-being. It cannot therefore be concluded that the fact that Latvia did not introduce the difference in treatment until 1995 showed that the State itself did not deem such a measure necessary to protect the national economy (see, mutatis mutandis, Ždanoka, cited above, § 131). 87. It remains to be determined whether there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the above-mentioned legitimate aim and the means employed in the present case. The Court notes in this connection that as a “permanently resident non-citizen”, the applicant is lawfully resident in Latvia on a permanent basis and that she receives a retirement pension in respect of her employment “in Latvia”, that is, for entities based in Latvian territory. The national authorities’ refusal to take into account her years of employment “outside Latvia” is based exclusively on the consideration that she does not have Latvian citizenship. It was not disputed in the instant case that a Latvian citizen in the same position as the applicant, having worked in the same enterprise during the same period, would be granted the disputed portion of the retirement pension. Moreover, the parties agreed that if the applicant became a naturalised Latvian citizen she would automatically receive the pension in respect of her entire working life. Nationality is therefore the sole criterion for the distinction complained of. However, the Court has held 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 (see Gaygusuz, cited above, § 42, and Koua Poirrez, cited above, § 46). 88. The Court cannot discern any such reasons in the present case. Firstly, it has not been established, or even alleged, that the applicant did not satisfy the other statutory conditions entitling her to a pension in respect of all her years of employment. She was therefore in an objectively similar situation to persons who had an identical or similar career but who, after 1991, were recognised as Latvian citizens. Secondly, there is no evidence that during the Soviet era there was any difference in treatment between nationals of the former USSR as regards pensions; indeed, the Government did not in any way dispute the applicant���s assertion that the Soviet social tax was paid and administered in the same way for all employees, regardless of national origin or place of birth (see, mutatis mutandis, Luczak v. Poland, no. 77782/01, §§ 49 and 55, 27 November 2007). Thirdly, the Court observes a notable difference between the applicant and Mr Gaygusuz and Mr Koua Poirrez in that she is not currently a national of any State. She has the status of a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia, the only State with which she has any stable legal ties and thus the only State which, objectively, can assume responsibility for her in terms of social security.