Onder 8.2 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 29 augustus 2017

88. The Court cannot discern any such reasons in the present case. Firstly, it has not been established, or even alleged, that the applicant did not satisfy the other statutory conditions entitling her to a pension in respect of all her years of employment. She was therefore in an objectively similar situation to persons who had an identical or similar career but who, after 1991, were recognised as Latvian citizens. Secondly, there is no evidence that during the Soviet era there was any difference in treatment between nationals of the former USSR as regards pensions; indeed, the Government did not in any way dispute the applicant’s assertion that the Soviet social tax was paid and administered in the same way for all employees, regardless of national origin or place of birth (see, mutatis mutandis, Luczak v. Poland , no. 77782/01, par.par. 49 and 55, ECHR 2007-...). Thirdly, the Court observes a notable difference between the applicant and Mr Gaygusuz and Mr Koua Poirrez in that she is not currently a national of any State. She has the status of a ‘permanently resident non-citizen’ of Latvia, 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.

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/58ad052d35211cd31cfdea60c8755df11acc6d68e3c5b8558a18b24e04194671 | shasum -a 256