CASE OF SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
Hearing: Savickis and Others v. Latvia (no. 49270/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-05-26 00:00:00)
Application no.: 49270/11
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2022-06-09 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0609JUD004927011
Respondent state: LVA
Articles of the Convention: 14;14+P1-1;37;37-1;37-1-c;P1-1;P1-1-1
Represented by: NIKUĻCEVA I.
Issue: State Pensions Act of 2 November 1995 ; Paragraph 1 of the transitional provisions of the State Pensions Act of 2 November 1995 as in force from 1 July 2008 until 18 July 2012 ; Citizenship Act

Strasbourg case-law cited: Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 88, Series A no. 94;Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, 15 November 1996, § 3, Reports 1996-V;Ahtinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 48907/99, 31 May 2005;Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 5809/08, § 134, 21 June 2016;Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, ECHR 2009;Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, § 47, ECHR 2011;Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II;British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44818/11, 15 September 2016;Broniowski v. Poland (dec.) [GC], no. 31443/96, § 74, ECHR 2002-X;Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 149 and 162 63, ECHR 2004-V;Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008;Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, ECHR 2010;Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, ECHR 2001 IV;D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00 §§ 177 and 196, ECHR 2007 IV;Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI;Damjanac v. Croatia, no. 52943/10, § 87, 24 October 2013;Denis and Irvine v. Belgium [GC], nos. 62819/17 and 63921/17, §§ 99-101, 1 June 2021;Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 93, 25 September 2018;Elberte v. Latvia, no. 61243/08, §§ 79-80, 13 January 2015;Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no. 78117/13, 5 September 2017;Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 56, ECHR 2013;Gaygusuz v. Austria, 16 September 1996, §§ 40, 42 and 47, Reports 1996 IV;Ghavalyan v. Armenia, no. 50423/08, § 60, 22 October 2020;Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014;Guberina v. Croatia, no. 23682/13, §§ 70 and 74, ECHR 2016;Haász and Szabó v. Hungary, nos. 11327/14 and 11613/14, §§ 36-37, 13 October 2015;Hoti v. Croatia, no. 63311/14, § 85, 26 April 2018;J.D. and A. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 32949/17 and 34614/17, 24 October 2019;Janković v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000 X;Jasinskij v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 38985/97, 9 September 1998;Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 75, 5 July 2016;Jurčić v. Croatia, no. 54711/15, § 64, 4 February 2021;Kolk and Kislyiy v. Estonia (dec.), nos. 23052/04 and 24018/04, ECHR 2006 I;Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, § 126, ECHR 2012;Koua Poirrez v. France, no. 40892/98, §§ 41 and 47, ECHR 2003 X;Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98 and 2 others, 3 October 2008;Kuolelis and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 74357/01 and 2 others, § 8, 19 February 2008;Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, § 65, 11 December 2018;Likvidējamā p/s Selga and Vasiļevska v. Latvia (dec.), nos. 17126/02 and 24991/02, 1 October 2013;Luczak v. Poland, no. 77782/01, ECHR 2007 XIII;Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 150, 8 November 2016;Makarčeva v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 31838/19, § 68, 28 September 2021;Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 54, ECHR 2006-VI;Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no. 20452/14, 19 December 2018;Mraović v. Croatia (striking out) [GC], no. 30373/13, § 24, 9 April 2021;Naït-Liman v. Switzerland [GC], no. 51357/07, § 174, 15 March 2018;Penart v. Estonia (dec.), nos. 14685/04, 24 January 2006;Pichkur v. Ukraine, no. 10441/06, § 51, 7 November 2013;Ponomaryovi v. Bulgaria, no. 5335/05, §§ 54-56, ECHR 2011;Popović and Others v. Serbia, nos. 26944/13 and 3 others, § 46, 30 June 2020;Rangelov v. Germany, no. 5123/07, § 99, 22 March 2012;Ribać v. Slovenia, no. 57101/10, §§ 43-45 and 53, 15 December 2017;Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, §§ 39-40, 29 June 2012;Sapeyan v. Armenia, no. 35738/03, § 23, 13 January 2009;Schmidt v. Latvia, no. 22493/05, §§ 66-71, 27 April 2017;Sõro v. Estonia, no. 22588/08, § 6, 3 September 2015;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2006-VI;Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 88, ECHR 2011;Tarkoev and Others v. Estonia, nos. 14480/08 and 47916/08, 4 November 2010;Tomaszewscy v. Poland, no. 8933/05, §§ 117-119, 15 April 2014;Tucka v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (dec.), no. 34586/10, 18 January 2011;Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC] (dec.), nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, 16 December 2020;Ulemek v. Croatia, no. 21613/16, § 77, 31 October 2019;Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 35343/05, ECHR 2015;Vasiljević and Drobnjaković v. Serbia (dec.), nos. 43987/11 and 51910/15, § 42, 28 January 2020;Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, § 113, 25 October 2012;Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 52, 24 July 2008;Vrountou v. Cyprus, no. 33631/06, § 61, 13 October 2015;Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 164, ECHR 2015;Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, §§ 12-13, ECHR 2006 IV
External sources: Resolution of 13 January 1983 of the European Parliament regarding the Baltic States;Resolution 189 (1960) of 29 September 1960 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, entitled “Situation in the Baltic States on the twentieth anniversary of their forcible incorporation into the Soviet Union”;Resolution 872(1987) of 28 January 1987 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, entitled “Situation of the Baltic peoples”

Conclusion: Struck out of the list (Art. 37) Striking out applications-{general};(Art. 37-1) Striking out applications;(Art. 37-1-c) Continued examination not justified;No violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
Separate opinion: TRUE