TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP2 (Applicant): The applicants are discriminated based on their nationality, and the nationality falls under national or social origin under Article 14, as shown in many cases like Gajdusus, Guapuare, and also Andreeva, where the court indicated very, very key reasons would have to be put forward before it could regard a difference of treatment based exclusively on the ground of nationality as compatible to the conventions.
AP2 (Applicant): There are no such reasons, even more so in the present case than in Andreeva, as we explain later.
AP2 (Applicant): The question also included the issue on whether the decree of applicant's choice regarding their status is relevant.
AP2 (Applicant): The one personal choice of the applicants which could have impacted the amount of their pensions was not applying for naturalization.
AP2 (Applicant): This had been considered in Andreeva as well, and the court justly decided that the prohibition of discrimination enshrined in Article 14 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 stands.
AP2 (Applicant): To proceed otherwise in dismissing the victim's claims on the grounds that he or she could have avoided the discrimination, for example, by acquiring a nationality, would render Article 14 devoid of substance, end of quote.
AP2 (Applicant): It is to be noted that there is no subjective right to naturalize under a letter in law.
AP2 (Applicant): So even had the applicants paid all the fees, passed all the language, history, and constitution exams, and taken the oath, getting the citizenship of Latvia wouldn't have been certain for them.
AP2 (Applicant): The government may refuse naturalization under vague security reasoning, and there is no judicial review available for such decisions.
AP2 (Applicant): With a slightly different wording of the citizenship law, this was the case considered by the court in Petropavlovskis versus Latvia.
AP2 (Applicant): Moreover, naturalization takes place after the pension was granted.
AP2 (Applicant): It would not always put former non-citizens on equal footing with citizens with regard to their pensions.
AP2 (Applicant): The main reason is the paragraph 33 of the transitional positions of the law on state pensions.
AP2 (Applicant): The benefits provided there for people with a total insurance period over 30 years are only valid at the time when a pension is being granted.
AP2 (Applicant): Finally, we have to note the advanced age of all the applicants.
AP2 (Applicant): Not a single of them was young in 1998 when applying for naturalization became possible for them as people born outside Latvia.
AP2 (Applicant): So the process of naturalization would have been more difficult for them than for most non-citizens.
AP2 (Applicant): The fifth court questions was about how the case is different from Andreeva.
AP2 (Applicant): The one difference repeatedly highlighted by the government is that Mrs. Andreeva had worked in an enterprise located
AP2 (Applicant): in Latvia.
AP2 (Applicant): However, this circumstance was not relevant for the court's conclusion that Andreeva's rights under the conventions had been violated.
AP2 (Applicant): Quote, having regard to the conclusions set out below, the court does not consider it necessary to determine this issue separately, end of quote.
AP2 (Applicant): The other issues, the other differences are either irrelevant for the scope of this case, like distinction between employment and mandatory military service periods because they are treated identically in law, like existence of agreements with Russia and Belarus, which did to some extent remedy the situation of some applicants after a certain point of their entry into force.
AP2 (Applicant): But the applicants have suffered the discrimination right from the beginning.
AP2 (Applicant): And the convention and the protocol number one became applicable for Latvia in 1997, long before the treaties with Russia and Belarus.
AP2 (Applicant): The rest of the differences from Andreeva are showing that the situation here, the restrictions of applicants' rights, are even less proportioned than in Andreeva, as we explain later.
AP2 (Applicant): The last question by the court begins from whether the difference in treatment between applicants and Latvian citizens will show a legitimate aim.
AP2 (Applicant): First, burden of proving any legitimate aim is existing is on the government.
AP2 (Applicant): At the difficult time of an economic crisis when Andreeva was decided, the Grand Chamber has only identified one legitimate aim, the protection of the country's economic system.
AP2 (Applicant): 12 years have passed since.
AP2 (Applicant): The Latvian economy is now much stronger, as shown by its membership in the OECD since 2016, by our GDP per capita, per purchasing power parity, which has grown almost twice between 2009 and 2019 by the most recent World Bank data.
AP2 (Applicant): In particular, the pension system in Latvia has grown as government itself points out in its memorial.
AP2 (Applicant): However, the minimum pensions were recognized to be unacceptably low by the Constitutional Court in 2020, so the government's reference to existing basic pensions in the same memorial as sufficient is not convincing.
AP2 (Applicant): No new legitimate aims have surfaced, so we invite the court to find that no legitimate aim is pushed by the differential treatment.
AP2 (Applicant): Should the court consider that the aim of protecting the economy still persists, we invite the court to find that it has become less stressing, so it cannot justify the same restrictions which were unjustifiable in 2009.
AP2 (Applicant): The questions also includes whether the differential treatment between applicants and Latvian citizens meets the proportionality requirements.
AP2 (Applicant): Again, the reasoning from Andreeva applies to the present case.
AP2 (Applicant): It was said that the applicant was a red law for the resident in Latvia on a permanent basis, and she received a permanent retirement pension in respect of her employment in Latvia.
AP2 (Applicant): The national authority's refusal to take into account her years of employment outside Latvia is based exclusively on the considerations that she does not have Latvian citizenship.
AP2 (Applicant): 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 have been granted the disputed portion of the retirement pension.
AP2 (Applicant): The same applies here.
AP2 (Applicant): As noted by the court, there are very, very few reasons needed to justify such distinction.
AP2 (Applicant): Like in Andreeva, there are no such reasons.
AP2 (Applicant): And again, to quote the criteria established in Andreeva test first, the applicant satisfies the other conditions entitling them to a pension in respect of all their years of employment.
AP2 (Applicant): There was an objectively similar situation to Latvian citizens with a similar career.
AP2 (Applicant): Second, there was no difference in the former USSR regarding the treatment between their nationals and the guard pensions.
AP2 (Applicant): Third, Latvia is the only state which could objectively assume responsibility for them in terms of social security.
AP2 (Applicant): The same here as in Andreeva.
AP2 (Applicant): The few changes which are present are in favor of applicants of the present case.
AP2 (Applicant): In January 29, months before Andreeva was decided, there were 358,000 non-citizens living in Latvia.
AP2 (Applicant): Their number have been falling ever since.
AP2 (Applicant): By early 2021, it has reached 209,000.
AP2 (Applicant): So the benefits, the fees, for the budget from not paying full pensions to non-citizens are becoming smaller every year.
AP2 (Applicant): However, the disputed restrictions on the pension rights of the applicants are as harsh now as they were in 2009.
AP2 (Applicant): To conclude, we invite the court to declare that Article 14, in conjunction with Article 1 of the First Protocol, has been violated in respect of all four surviving applicants.
AP2 (Applicant): Distinguished member of the court, Mr. President,
AP2 (Applicant): this concludes our statement.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Kuzmins.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I also thank Ms. Nikuļceva for the submissions of the applicants.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I then finally turn to the third-party intervener, the Russian government.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Mr. Galperin, you have the floor.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Thank you, dear Mr. President, honorable judges, Ms. Lidze, applicants' council.
TP1 (ThirdParty): I will try to be short. My esteemed colleague tried to allege that this case about the
TP1 (ThirdParty): Latvian independence and so-called Soviet occupation, but it is not about that. It is
TP1 (ThirdParty): a straightforward case about illegal social discrimination and going the opposite wrong way, which is proposed by the defended government. This court should examine and assess numerous
TP1 (ThirdParty): international and constitutional documents going back to 1939, 1940, 1990, and Latvian constitutions and laws during the years which Ms. Lidze called disputed. And it is clearly not
TP1 (ThirdParty): within the competence of this court in the case. And if this court will go this wrong direction,
TP1 (ThirdParty): then the conclusion will be reached that these applicants, including the third applicant, who was just three years old when he came to Latvia to live, that they are occupants, that these occupants and the international public are reliable for that, and this lifelong discrimination is the punishment for that occupation, which is absolutely wrong and goes not within the sphere of the European Convention of Human Rights. So the rights of non-citizens
TP1 (ThirdParty): in Latvia, according to the national law of pension, significantly limited in comparison to citizens that are to the labor market, accrued both in the territory of Latvia and in other republics of the former USSR. And I would like to note that the USSR was a unified formation.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Soviet citizens could travel all over the territory of the USSR, including not by the USSR, but as a result of a compulsory job placement by the state authorities and military service, as in the case of one of the applicants. And taking into account the long-term state
TP1 (ThirdParty): of pension support, they had reasonable expectations that the labor record would be accounted on the whole territory of their country. Thus, the difference in the amount of pension payments
TP1 (ThirdParty): of citizens and non-citizens is substantial, unfair, and discriminatory. The Latvian government
TP1 (ThirdParty): confirms these conclusions in their memorandum and justifies the doubtful policy on this matter by specifying objective grounds for the two categories. Especially astonishing, I would
TP1 (ThirdParty): like to say, is the statement that the labor activities of non-citizens outside the territory of Latvia make no contribution to the development of the state and the national economy. The
TP1 (ThirdParty): conclusions of the Latvian government that the existence of the majority of non-citizens was facilitated by the 50 years of occupation and the Soviet migration policy raised serious doubts, taking into account the fact that Latvia was a full-fledged part of the Soviet Union for 50 years.
TP1 (ThirdParty): It is at least strange to use such controversial and non-legal categories as Soviet occupation, Sovietization, Russification, to justify clearly discriminatory provisions and continuation of their application 30 years after Latvia became independent again. Moreover, similar circumstances
TP1 (ThirdParty): were previously examined by the court and similar reasoning of the Latvian authorities received proper assessment. And as in the Andreeva case, which was also mentioned several times today,
TP1 (ThirdParty): the Grand Chamber acknowledged a violation of the conventional rights of the applicant, who was also a resident non-citizen of Latvia. The court stated that differentiated approach
TP1 (ThirdParty): to pension rights of citizens and non-citizens was discriminatory. The court pointed out that
TP1 (ThirdParty): national authorities' refusal to take into account the years of applicants' employment outside Latvia was motivated exclusively by the fact that she was not a citizen of Latvia. A citizen of Latvia
TP1 (ThirdParty): in the same situation as the applicant who worked at the same enterprise for the same period of time would have received the retirement pension in the high amount. If the applicant became a naturalized
TP1 (ThirdParty): citizen of Latvia, she would automatically receive the pension based on her whole labor record, including all USSR republics. This court came to a conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds
TP1 (ThirdParty): for limitation of the applicant's rights on the grounds of citizenship. The Grand Chamber
TP1 (ThirdParty): highlighted that Latvia is the only state with which the applicant has any stable legal relationship, thus the only state that can assume the responsibility to provide pension support to her.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The court considered the submissions of the Latvian government insufficient to confirm compliance of the difference in treatment with the requirements of Article 14 of the Convention.
TP1 (ThirdParty): I wish to point out that the situation of the applicants in the present case is similar to the situation in the case of Andreeva. In both cases, the applicants had stable legal relationship with
TP1 (ThirdParty): Latvia and suffered from application of the same discriminatory provisions that remained unchanged from Andreeva case decision. The only change from the moment of the court's judgment in the case of
TP1 (ThirdParty): Andreeva is the Latvia signing of the bilateral agreements in the sphere of social support, as was mentioned by Ms. Lidze, including an agreement between the Russian Federation and
TP1 (ThirdParty): the Latvian Republic that entered into effect in 2010-11. These agreements entitled people to apply
TP1 (ThirdParty): for recalculation of the amount of their pension, taking into account their labor record, accrued during the Soviet period outside Latvia. However, such agreements are concluded by Latvia
TP1 (ThirdParty): with only five out of 15 former Soviet republics and, correspondingly, only the service record accrued on the territory of these countries may be accounted for. The applicants in the present
TP1 (ThirdParty): case also worked in the territories of other republics of the USSR and Latvia has not signed any similar agreements with them. So it is not possible to account the additional labor record
TP1 (ThirdParty): of the applicants in this case, thus putting them into an unequal position as compared to the citizens of Latvia. Moreover, none of these agreements assumes its retrospective application
TP1 (ThirdParty): and possibility of compensation of the amounts of pensions that have not been received before.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Consequently, even in case of Latvia signing similar agreements with all the republics of the former USSR, and so we don't have any information that it will ever happen, the applicants will be able to receive only an increase in pension payments in the future, but not compensated for their losses due to the discriminatory approach of the Latvian government.
TP1 (ThirdParty): It demonstrates the apparent difference in treatment of the applicants in comparison to the citizens of Latvia in the matter of determining their pension amounts.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The existence of bilateral agreements in the sphere of social security does not guarantee the possibility of effective restoration of the violated rights, and it has also been pointed out by the court in Andreeva case. The attempt to solve the matter by implementation of the Andreeva
TP1 (ThirdParty): judgment and entering into the bilateral international agreements without any changes to national discriminatory legislation has been subjected to criticism by the bodies of the Council of Europe. For instance, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance expressed its
TP1 (ThirdParty): concerns due to the insufficient actions taken by Latvia to implement the judgment of the court.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The advisory committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities also expressed a deep concern that the court's judgment in the case of Andreeva had not resulted in a complete solution of the pension problem and the signed agreements were not applicable to all non-citizens. It was actually confirmed that national discriminatory norms were still
TP1 (ThirdParty): in effect. Latvia shall cease its discriminatory policy in relation to resident non-citizens and
TP1 (ThirdParty): bring its legislation in compliance with international standards and the court's Andreeva judgment. Therefore, the claims of the applicants in the present case are strongly supported.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Thank you very much.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Galperin.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): There was a slight interference for a very short period of time at the beginning, but I think it was insignificant.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): We heard all of your submissions adequately.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I now turn to judges of the Grand Chamber who want to pose questions to the parties.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Judge Lemmens.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): I have a question for the applicants and a question for the government, but both parties can answer both questions if they want.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): The first question is to the applicants.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): It's about the applicants' connection with Latvia.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): We heard from you that there are objective legal ties with Latvia.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): My question is more about the subjective ties.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): And I apologize if this is a personal question and if you think that it is not relevant, you can of course tell me.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): But I would like to know whether the applicants consider themselves Latvians.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): And we heard about the difficulties to obtain naturalization.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): But is it possible to say that there is a choice of not acquiring Latvian citizenship?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): And if so, why did then the applicants prefer not to acquire that Latvian citizenship?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): My second question is for the government.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): All the applicants in this case worked for some time outside Latvia, and that's the reason why they didn't get that supplement.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): But I would like to know whether the difference of treatment extinguishes with the passing away of the applicants, or whether there are further effects, for instance on their children, coming from that situation.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Thank you.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Judge Hüseynov.
Lәtif Hüseynov (Judge): Thank you, Mr. President.
Lәtif Hüseynov (Judge): I have two questions to both parties.
Lәtif Hüseynov (Judge): First question, I'd like to ask about the naturalization in Latvia, whether there were any new trends in this area.
Lәtif Hüseynov (Judge): And more specifically, are there any differences as regards naturalization between permanently resident non-citizens on one side and foreigners and status persons on the other side?
Lәtif Hüseynov (Judge): And my second question to the government, but of course the applicants, representatives may also intervene and answer this question.
Lәtif Hüseynov (Judge): Are there any differences, or do you see any differences in the factual situations of the applicants in the present case that would justify a differentiated approach of our court vis-a-vis their complaints?
Lәtif Hüseynov (Judge): Thank you.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Judge Mits.
Mārtiņš Mits (Judge): Thank you.
Mārtiņš Mits (Judge): I have two questions.
Mārtiņš Mits (Judge): The first question goes to the Ms. Līce,
Mārtiņš Mits (Judge): representative of the government.
Mārtiņš Mits (Judge): From the outset, the case was made as concerning the supplements of the pensions, whereas we heard from the representative of the applicants that this concerns these periods of employment concerns the pension itself.
Mārtiņš Mits (Judge): So I would like to clarify and comment on the impact on the pension itself that the applicants receive.
Mārtiņš Mits (Judge): This is a question to the government representative, but of course also the applicant representatives may comment on it.
Mārtiņš Mits (Judge): And the second question goes to applicant representative, and in particular to what Ms. Nikuļceva was saying.
Mārtiņš Mits (Judge): I would like to clarify what is the basis for an argument that Latvia must assume responsibility for paying pensions for the periods of employment of permanent resident non-citizens outside the territory of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic.
Mārtiņš Mits (Judge): So it was mentioned, but I'm not sure I clearly understood it.
Mārtiņš Mits (Judge): Of course, representative of the government may comment on this question as well.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Section President O'Leary.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): I refer this question to both parties, and it's based on a document published on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia entitled, Basic Facts About Citizenship and Language Policy of Latvia and Some Sensitive History-Related Issues.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And in it, there is a paragraph which reads as follows, and I quote, Non-citizens enjoy equal protection under the law, both in Latvia and while living or traveling abroad, and are the only group of persons, in addition to citizens, who are granted permanent residence in Latvia ex legae.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): Non-citizens have the same social guarantees as Latvian citizens, including, for example, with regard to pensions and unemployment benefits.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): As to political rights, the only significant difference between Latvian citizens and non-citizens is the right to vote and to work in the civil service or occupy posts directly related to national security.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): I would be interested in the observations of both parties in relation to that very broad statement on equal protection under the law in Latvia.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): Thank you very much.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much indeed.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): There are no further questions that will be posed by the judges.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): We will then break for 25 minutes.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I would ask the parties to be present back at 11.45 sharp local time.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The hearing is suspended.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The hearing is resumed.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I call Ms. Līce.
GR1 (Government): Thank you, Mr. President.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, I will first respond to the questions posed by the judges,
GR1 (Government): and then I will provide my final remarks considering various arguments raised today.
GR1 (Government): I remain at the Court's disposal should the Court require further information in writing, including any specific statistics that I might not be able to provide at the moment.
GR1 (Government): As to the questions, first, Judge Lemens asked about the ties of the applicants with Latvia and also about the naturalization.
GR1 (Government): First of all, I wish to underline that the present case is not about current ties of the applicants with Latvia.
GR1 (Government): The case is about the alleged ties or not existing ties between the applicants and Latvia during the disputed years.
GR1 (Government): In other words, during the years when the applicants worked or served military service outside Latvia.
GR1 (Government): As the case concerns the alleged discrimination in taking into account these periods of time when calculating the applicants' pension.