On 18 February 2009, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) handed down the judgment in the case of Andrejeva v. Latvia (Application no. 55707/00). The applicant, Ms. Natalija Andrejeva, claimed a violation of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) and Article 6 (right to fair trial).

The case involved the calculation of Ms. Andrejeva’s pension award under the State Pensions Act 1995 (the Act). The Supreme Court of Latvia interpreted the Act narrowly to exclude from the pension calculation a period in which her work did not constitute “employment in the territory of Latvia”. However, in reality the applicant had physically been working in Latvia throughout her employment, she was nominally employed by Soviet but non-Latvian agencies and had social tax paid on her behalf on the same basis as Latvian citizens. Ms Andrejeva, who came to live in Latvia as a child, spent her entire working life there and became stateless as a result of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991. She complained of the fact that this interpretation was applied only to non-citizens, including stateless people. As a result she received a considerably lower pension than that received by Latvian citizens in a similar position.

Finding a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.1, the Court held that the sole reason for refusing to take account of Ms Andrejeva’s employment “outside Latvia” for her pension calculations was her lack of citizenship (her status as a stateless person). Despite recognising that the State had a legitimate aim in taking into account its own budgetary limitations to protect the country’s economic system, the Court could not find a reason substantial enough to justify such a differentiation in treatment.  Further, the Court held that the fact that the Senate of the Supreme Court had held its hearing earlier than scheduled, thus preventing Ms Andrejeva from taking part in the examination of the appeal on points of law lodged by the public prosecutor on her behalf, constituted a violation of Article 6.

The case illustrates the unique vulnerability of stateless people to discrimination in all areas of life. Indeed, the Court observed the particular disadvantage in Ms Andrejeva’s situation as a ‘permanently resident non-citizen’ of Latvia, whereas Latvia was “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”.

To read ERT case summary click here.

To read the full text of the case click here.