Protection of Constitutional Identity as a Legitimate Aim for Differential Treatment

On 9 June 2022, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights pronounced its judgment in the case of Savickis and Others v Latvia. The case concerns a differential treatment in the calculation of pension between Latvian citizens and the so-called ‘permanently resident non-citizens’ (nepilsoņi), which was the applicants’ official status. The applicants were denied recognition of their period of employment outside of Latvia when the country was illegally occupied by the Soviet Union (the USSR), while Latvian citizens could enjoy such a benefit. They argued that this constituted a breach of the accessory right to nondiscrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR in conjunction with the right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR.1 The Grand Chamber eventually found no violation of these provisions. The importance of the case cannot be overstated, as the Court recognised Latvia’s argument that the differential treatment was aimed to protect Latvia’s constitutional identity. In other words, protection of constitutional identity was accepted as a