TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): In other words, the government reiterates that during those disputed years, the applicants did not have ties with Latvia.
GR1 (Government): As to the naturalization and the possibilities to acquire Latvian citizenship, the naturalization process has repeatedly been simplified.
GR1 (Government): There are a number of exemptions, either from tests or from naturalization fee.
GR1 (Government): And I would particularly emphasize that for any applicants aged 65 and above, there are a number of exceptions and naturalization for elderly is very, very easy.
GR1 (Government): To answer the other question from Judge Lemens, whether there are any effects of this alleged difference treatments on other members of the applicants' families, no, the answer is clear, no.
GR1 (Government): This difference regards only the calculation of additional payments to the applicants and have no effect on other members of the family considering the very personal nature of the pension.
GR1 (Government): Coming to the question from Judge Huseino, also regarding naturalization, I would say briefly I responded that this process has been on a number of occasions facilitated and simplified.
GR1 (Government): If one compares the possibilities of non-citizens and those of foreigners or stateless persons, it's much easier for non-citizens to naturalize considering that non-citizens much easier can comply with the residence requirements.
GR1 (Government): As I noted in my statement, non-citizens are considered permanent residents ex legge.
GR1 (Government): They do not need to obtain separate residence permits to reside in the territory of Latvia.
GR1 (Government): And as to the factual differences between the applicants and, as I understood, the case of Andreeva versus Latvia, I can only reiterate that in the government's view there's significant difference in the fact that the disputed years, during those disputed years, the applicants in the present case were not in the territory of Latvia and did not form ties with Latvia during those disputed years.
GR1 (Government): Turning to the question from Judge Mitz, whether the case is about the supplements or the pension, I wish to once again underline that there's a difference between the right to pension and the amount of pension.
GR1 (Government): The Convention guarantees legitimate expectations and the right to receive all-day pension.
GR1 (Government): The Convention does not guarantee a specific amount of pension.
GR1 (Government): In the present case, the dispute is whether these years the applicants were not in the territory of Latvia should be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of pension.
GR1 (Government): It does not concern the rights of the applicants to receive all-day pension as such.
GR1 (Government): And I can only repeat that the applicants, all applicants do receive pension that Latvia pays to all citizens and non-citizens.
GR1 (Government): Turning to the last question from Judge O'Leary, as I attempted to underline in my statements, there's a watershed in the history of Latvia.
GR1 (Government): The occupation in 1940, when Latvia lost de facto control over its territory and over the body of its citizens, and then the restoration of Latvia's independence in 1990-1991.
GR1 (Government): For all the years since the restoration of independence, Latvia is able to assume full responsibility, and therefore it ensures all rights of non-citizens for those periods, as I underlined in my statement.
GR1 (Government): For all the years accrued for the pension purposes, non-citizens and citizens are paid equally.
GR1 (Government): I would also wish to underline that for the years non-citizens have worked in the territory of Latvia prior to the restoration of Latvia's independence, they are equally paid as citizens.
GR1 (Government): I hope I have at least briefly responded to these questions, and I now wish to provide my final remarks.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Ms. Līce, before you bring your final remarks, Judge Huseinov has asked to just to follow up on his question.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): So I would ask you, give him the floor and you would respond and then you conclude.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Judge Hüseynov.
Lәtif Hüseynov (Judge): I thank the government agent for answering my first question.
Lәtif Hüseynov (Judge): But I'm afraid my second question may have been wrongly interpreted or misunderstood.
Lәtif Hüseynov (Judge): My second question was whether you see any differences in the factual situation of the current applicants, of the applicants in the present case, among them, if there are any differences in the factual situation of the applicants that would justify, in your view, a differentiated approach of our court vis-a-vis their complaints.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Ms. Līce, please.
GR1 (Government): Thank you. I apologise for misinterpreting the question.
GR1 (Government): In my opening statement, we provided several arguments regarding the admissibility of the complaints regarding specific applicants. Yes, there are factual differences, depending on
GR1 (Government): whether the applicants have properly exhausted domestic remedies and whether the applicants have complied with a six-month time limit. This allows me to reiterate that the government does
GR1 (Government): not question that the applicants have wrongly submitted the complaint to the Constitutional Court or they have not exhausted domestic remedies by not complaining to the Constitutional Court. Instead, the government argues that these rounds of domestic proceedings should be disregarded
GR1 (Government): as they constitute an extraordinary remedy. The applicants sought reopening of domestic
GR1 (Government): proceedings and there were no regular proceedings immediately after the national authorities for the first time rejected the applicants' request to recalculate their pensions. So, extraordinary
GR1 (Government): remedies according to this course practice are not taken into account while calculating the six-month time limit. But to summarise, yes, there are factual differences between the applicants,
GR1 (Government): depending on when they arrived in Latvia and which periods of time are taken into consideration in calculating their pensions. However, when it comes to the disputed years, when neither of the
GR1 (Government): applicants were in the territory of Latvia in that regard, the applicants are in identical situations. I hope that I have answered the question. Thank you.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): So would you like to conclude then, Ms. Līce,
Robert Spano (JudgeP): your final remarks?
GR1 (Government): Yes, please.
GR1 (Government): With your permission, I would like to highlight two, again, facts that are at the core of the present case.
GR1 (Government): From the outset, and first of all, I again wish to reiterate that all additional supplements to the applicants, old age pensions that have been accrued after Latvia's restoration of independence, are calculated and indexed in the same way as supplements to old age pensions of Latvian citizens.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, applicants, in the same way as citizens, can and do receive additional benefits for health, transportation, housing and other reasons.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, it should be clear that there's no difference in treatment of the applicants if compared to the citizens of Latvia when it comes to the periods of pension accrued after the restoration of Latvia's independence, when Latvia was finally able to take full control over its territory and over the body of its citizens.
GR1 (Government): For these years, the applicants are in identical situation with those citizens of Latvia that receive old age pensions.
GR1 (Government): I also wish to recall that for the years the applicants have worked in Latvian territory before the restoration of independence, they are also calculated their pensions in the same way as Latvian citizens.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the only question in the present case is whether the Convention requires Latvia to pay the applicants additions and supplements to their pensions for the periods of work and military service outside Latvia's territory during Latvia's illegal occupation when the applicants neither resided nor worked in the territory of Latvia.
GR1 (Government): The second point is a recollection of the fundamental difference between the case of Andreeva versus Latvia and the present case.
GR1 (Government): I have on a number of occasions already underlined that in Andreeva case, the disputed years were those years when the applicants resided and worked in the territory of Latvia.
GR1 (Government): In the present case, the applicants resided and worked outside the territory of Latvia during the disputed years.
GR1 (Government): To conclude, Mr. President, this Court is required to interpret the Convention.
GR1 (Government): It is not the subject matter of the present case the nature of the status of non-citizen or the obligation of the states or the rights of the states to conclude international agreements.
GR1 (Government): The subject matter of this case is interpretation of Article 1, Protocol 1 to the Convention.
GR1 (Government): The Government submits that this Article cannot be interpreted in a way to oblige any contracting party to assume obligation for any work or service carried out outside its territory with no ties to this contracting state.
GR1 (Government): That contracting state is not obliged to assume responsibility for payments of pensions in this regard.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I now turn to the applicants' representatives.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Ms Nikuļceva, Mr Kuzmins, you have the floor.
AP2 (Applicant): Thank you. Answering the first questions by Judge Lemons, the applicants do most certainly
AP2 (Applicant): consider themselves Latvians. There are also subjective ties for them with Latvia, like
AP2 (Applicant): their children go to Latvian schools, their friends are living here, they have worked here in Latvia. For some applicants, their spouses are Latvian as well. This goes beyond the objective
AP2 (Applicant): facts of living in Latvia and having the status of non-citizens. On why the applicants were not
AP2 (Applicant): able to naturalise, the main common reasons for the applicants is that the requirements for naturalisation are rather high, specifically in regarding to the Latvian language. Not only
AP2 (Applicant): is there a high level required just in Latvian language exams, but in addition, they would have to pass also the constitution and history exams also in the Latvian language. That's a difficulty,
AP2 (Applicant): in particular for them, because they were already elderly people when naturalisation became possible for them as people born outside Latvia in 1998.
AP2 (Applicant): And for the next question, I will pass the floor to Dr. Nikulceva.
AP1 (Applicant): Thank you. Thank you, Judge Hussainov, for your questions and I would like to answer to them.
AP1 (Applicant): Regarding naturalization, I also would like to add that none of the applicants had the right to be naturalized just after the restoration of the independence of Latvia. Those rules at the
AP1 (Applicant): very beginning were very strict and only from 1998 they had the right to pretend for naturalization because before only those non-citizens who were born in Latvia were entitled to apply for naturalization. From 1998 there were no principal changes in the rules of naturalization and those
AP1 (Applicant): rules are equal for non-citizens and for foreign persons, for stateless persons also. So, this
AP1 (Applicant): person should pass language examination and should know Latvian constitution and Latvian history.
AP1 (Applicant): The only difference is that for foreign persons there is a requirement that they should permanently live five years in Latvia and this is not a requirement for non-citizens because non-citizens live in Latvia permanently. And those very difficult rules for elderly persons were
AP1 (Applicant): actually the reason why the applicants were not naturalized, why they were not able to become citizens of Latvia and this is also the reason for most other non-citizens of Latvia currently.
AP1 (Applicant): Thank you. I would also like to thank Judge Mitz for your questions and I will try to
AP1 (Applicant): answer these questions. Firstly, I honestly do not understand the arguments that we are speaking
AP1 (Applicant): only about some supplement to the retirement pensions because in Latvia, according to our legislation, we have a retirement pension and we have some supplement for working years, those who worked for a very long time. And here, in this case, the applicants applied
AP1 (Applicant): because of calculation of their retirement pensions. This calculation is provided according
AP1 (Applicant): to the formula of paragraph 13 of the transitional provisions of the law on state pensions.
AP1 (Applicant): According to this formula, the amount of pension, not of the supplement, but of the retirement pension essentially depends on the length of work periods accumulated prior to the adoption of this law. This is prior to 1995. And because of some periods of work in the Soviet times,
AP1 (Applicant): it was not taken into account for the applicants that the retirement pension is smaller than for the citizens. Of course, these concerns are also supplements, but we are not speaking
AP1 (Applicant): in substance about supplements to pensions, but to retirement pension as such.
AP1 (Applicant): And thank you, Judge Mitz, also about for a second question concerning a fundament of Latvia's responsibility for work periods for non-citizens outside the Soviet Union.
AP1 (Applicant): And once more, I would like to explain that my arguments were twofold. There were two main
AP1 (Applicant): arguments. Firstly, that Latvia itself has undertaken responsibility for those citizens
AP1 (Applicant): of the former Soviet Union who stayed in Latvia without accepting citizenship.
AP1 (Applicant): This is the independence declaration of 1990. This is the constitution of Latvia,
AP1 (Applicant): which guarantees social rights for those persons. And this is the law on state pensions,
AP1 (Applicant): which in principle guarantees non-citizens' retirement pensions. And the second argument
AP1 (Applicant): is that Latvia never said that we are not responsible for the Soviet times, for work periods in the Soviet times. On the contrary, Latvia included those periods in the calculation
AP1 (Applicant): of retirement pensions. So, Latvia itself took this responsibility, but it took this
AP1 (Applicant): responsibility on different grounds, according to different criteria, to non-citizens and to citizens. And this is our main argument, that we think that this should be on an equal basis.
AP1 (Applicant): I will now pass the floor to Mr Kuzmin for answering the last question.
AP2 (Applicant): Thank you also to Judge O'Leary for her question about the equal protection and same social guarantees as declared by the foreign ministry.
AP2 (Applicant): This is exactly what we and the applicants are asking for this to materialize, to bring the practice in lettering laws in consistency with the equal protection as it was declared by the government and with the same social guarantees, including the specifically named age pensions.
AP2 (Applicant): I will return the floor for Dr. Nikulceva for the conclusion.
AP1 (Applicant): Thank you. I would like very briefly to address two issues regarding the government's opinion.
AP1 (Applicant): Firstly, I really would like to stress out that in our understanding this is not the case about Latvia's responsibility for work periods outside the Soviet Union. This is an anti-discrimination
AP1 (Applicant): case. Applicants do not claim inclusion of some periods outside Latvia in those work periods
AP1 (Applicant): which are used for calculation of their retirement pensions and such. They just claim equal
AP1 (Applicant): attitude. They claim precisely the same benefits which are provided in Latvia for citizens of
AP1 (Applicant): Latvia. As I mentioned, for citizens of Latvia, those periods in the Soviet Union are taken into
AP1 (Applicant): account. We claim exactly the same. In addition to that, I would like briefly to address one more
AP1 (Applicant): argument of the government. That is that non-citizens did not contribute to the economy
AP1 (Applicant): of Latvia as Latvian citizens did. I would also like to provide two counter-arguments.
AP1 (Applicant): The first is that in Soviet times, it was a common, centralised, unified economy, a common state, and any particular unit of the Soviet Union lacked economic independence. So, we cannot
AP1 (Applicant): actually speak about contributions, particularly in the Latvian economy.
AP1 (Applicant): Also, it concerns payment of taxes and payment of pensions from the budget. All of this was
AP1 (Applicant): centralised in the Soviet times. Secondly, I would like to underline
AP1 (Applicant): that non-citizens do not claim anything more than for citizens. Here, we speak about
AP1 (Applicant): the work periods outside Latvia also for citizens. Those citizens of Latvia, when they worked outside
AP1 (Applicant): Latvia, did not contribute to the economy of Latvia. But still, those periods are taken
AP1 (Applicant): into account. This is the difference between non-citizens and citizens.
AP1 (Applicant): Thank you very much.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much indeed to the applicants' representatives.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): No particular questions were posed to the third party intervenors, so we have now come to an end of the hearing.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I'd like to thank the parties for their submissions and answers to the court's questions.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The court will now deliberate on the admissibility and merits, and the judgment will be delivered at a later stage.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The parties will be informed of the date of delivery.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I declare the hearing closed.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Vistiŋš and Perepjolkins against Latvia.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): The case was lodged with the court on 5 June 2001 under Article 34 of the Convention by two Latvia nationals, Mr. Jānis Vistiņš and Mr. Genādijs Perepjolkins.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the third section of the court pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of Court.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): It was declared admissible on 30 November 2006.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): On 8 March 2011, a chamber of the third section delivered its judgment in the case.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): On 15 September 2011, the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the applicant's request to refer the case to the Grand Chamber of the Court.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Mrs. Reine, assisted by Mrs. Kaulina, counsel, and Mrs. Priedīte-Kanceviča, Mrs. Strautmane, and Mr. Bramans, advisors.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. Radziņš, counsel, assisted by Mrs. Kārkliņa, counsel, and Mr. Gromovs, advisor.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): One of the applicants, Mr. Perepjolkins, is also present.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): I welcome them all in the name of the court.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): As representative of the applicants, I have determined the order of addresses as follows.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): Mr. Radziņš for the applicants will speak first, and then Mrs. Reine for the government.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): I call Mr. Radziņš.
AP1 (Applicant): Dear Mr. President, honorable judges, ladies and gentlemen,
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. Perepiolkins and Mr. Vistinch,
AP1 (Applicant): who are represented by me, submitted their application to the European Court of Human Rights on the 5th of June, 2001.
AP1 (Applicant): They claimed the violation of their rights in breach of Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1, and plead compensation for damages caused to them, totaling approximately 6.7
AP1 (Applicant): million euros due to infringement of their property rights, namely unlawful expropriation of their property, ignoring the law, and discrimination on the grounds of type of property acquisition.
AP1 (Applicant): In this regard, I confirm all the facts and foundations as they have been set out in the submissions to the court and in the memorial on the merits of the case of 3rd of November, 2011.
AP1 (Applicant): And I would like to stress the following.
AP1 (Applicant): The state, in its observations, mainly pointed out that the disproportionate amount of the compensation paid to the applicants was connected to the fact that expropriation of land took place within the framework of the land reform.
AP1 (Applicant): This is why it is important to understand that the land reform in Latvia has been continued from 1990 until nowadays.
AP1 (Applicant): And according to the national law on the land reform, it will be finalized by fixing its completion by a separate law.
AP1 (Applicant): But completion of the land reform in certain cities and overall in the state must be distinguished from the completion of the land reform regarding the property of the individuals.
AP1 (Applicant): The goal of the land reform was to convert state property to private.
AP1 (Applicant): And nowhere in the legislation was foreseen the contrary, since it would have been in contradiction to the principles of denationalization.
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, if the land reform were to mean that property rights obtained as a result of it are unstable and might be repeatedly ignored, it would contradict logic.
AP1 (Applicant): We are convinced that within the framework of any land reform, change of the title may take place no more than once.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, the land returned to the former owners or privatized by individual persons and legal entities became an object of the civil law-based free circulations.
AP1 (Applicant): The only restrictions are connected with the right of municipality to first refusal in case of selling the land, as well as a few restrictions connected with the maximum rent amount.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, if the state found that denationalization of the property initial was not conducted in accordance with the legislation, then the state had the right to contest the related decisions before the court.
AP1 (Applicant): The state never conducted such actions in relation to those plots of land which Perepyolkins and Vistinch in 1994 received as donations from the persons who received these plots within the framework of the denationalization process.
AP1 (Applicant): In 1994, the legislation didn't contain any restrictions regarding the donation of land.
AP1 (Applicant): At the same time, should it have appeared to the state that a different kind of deal was being veiled by a donation, then the state had an obligation and was fully capable of disputing such deal within a 10-year period.
AP1 (Applicant): It doesn't happen.
AP1 (Applicant): The state didn't initiate such dispute in relation to the above-mentioned donations to my clients.
AP1 (Applicant): Perepyolkins and Vistinch were a wall that they received plots of land were located in the territory of Riga Free Harbor, and that according to the Riga Free Harbor law, the remuneration received by owners of the land from the harbor for the rent might not exceed 5% of the cadastral value of land annually.
AP1 (Applicant): In such a way, the state protected its as well as public interests.
AP1 (Applicant): Namely, the land owners could not receive disproportionate income by utilizing the location of the land plots in the territory of the harbor.
AP1 (Applicant): This is the way that the state and society benefits from harbors, which undeniably are an important source of income for Latvia as a transit country.
AP1 (Applicant): For this reason, from 1995 to 1999, Perepyolkins and Vistinch litigated with Riga Free Harbor regarding the rent amount, because the harbor didn't wish to pay the maximum 5% rent.
AP1 (Applicant): The court partly satisfied their claim.