FIFTH SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 21698\/08
\nGeorgijs SORO\u010cINSKIS
\nagainst Latvia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 May 2018 as a Chamber composed of:<\/p>\n
Angelika Nu\u00dfberger, President,
\nErik M\u00f8se,
\nAndr\u00e9 Potocki,
\nS\u00edofra O\u2019Leary,
\nM\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits,
\nGabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,
\nLado Chanturia, judges,
\nand Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 January 2008,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr Georgijs Soro\u010dinskis, is a Latvian national who was born in 1938 and lives in R\u012bga. He was represented before the Court by Ms\u00a0I. Niku\u013cceva, a lawyer practising in Riga.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Latvian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agents, Ms I. Reine and subsequently by Ms K. L\u012bce.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Allocation and recalculation of the retirement pension<\/em><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 November 1998 the applicant requested a retirement pension. At that time the applicant had the status of \u201cpermanently resident non\u2011citizen\u201d of Latvia; thus, in accordance with paragraph 1 of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions, the periods that he had spent in employment outside the territory of Latvia were not taken into account. Furthermore \u2013 under paragraph 13 of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions \u2013 in view of the fact that the applicant had worked in Latvia for less than thirty years, his own average monthly \u201cinsurance wage\u201d (that is to say the income in relation to which the insurance was paid) instead of the \u201caverage monthly insurance wage in the State\u201d (that is to say the average monthly insurance wage of all insured persons in any given calendar year) was taken into account for the purpose of calculating his pension. Accordingly, his monthly pension was set at 9.96\u00a0Latvian lats (LVL \u2013 approximately 14 euros (EUR)). As this sum was lower than the minimum pension set by the Cabinet of Ministers, the applicant in fact received LVL\u00a031 (approximately EUR 43).<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 11\u00a0June 1999 an agreement between Latvia and Ukraine on cooperation in the field of social security entered into force, and on 17\u00a0June 1999 the applicant applied for a recalculation of his pension to take into account the periods during which he had worked in Ukraine. On 9\u00a0February 2000, on the basis of having acquired citizenship of Latvia, the applicant applied for a further recalculation to take account of the remaining periods during which he had worked abroad. The State Social Insurance Agency took into account the periods during which the applicant had worked abroad when determining his aggregate insurance period (for a definition of \u201cinsurance period\u201d see paragraph 16 below) as being forty years and twenty-three days; however, as the employment periods accumulated in Latvia had not increased, his own average monthly insurance wage (and not the average monthly insurance wage in the State) was again taken into account in the calculation of his pension. Even with those additions, the applicant\u2019s pension was still below the level of the minimum pension, as set by the Cabinet of Ministers. Thus, after the formal recalculation of his pension, the pension the applicant actually received did not increase. On 1\u00a0January 2002, in accordance with amendments to the Law on State Pensions, the applicant\u2019s pension was raised to LVL 45.00 (approximately EUR 62), which was the minimum pension for persons whose insurance period exceeded thirty years.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant continued working, and on 2 July 2003 he applied for yet another recalculation of his pension. On 11 September 2003 the State Social Insurance Agency recalculated the applicant\u2019s pension on the basis of the insurance contributions he had made following his retirement. It took the additional time period worked into account in determining the applicant\u2019s aggregate insurance period. However, as the period the applicant had been employed in Latvia still did not reach thirty years, the average monthly insurance wage in the State was not taken into account in the calculation of his pension. Thus, for a total employment period of forty-one years eleven months and twenty-eight days the applicant\u2019s pension was set at LVL\u00a025.09 (approximately EUR 34) per month. Therefore, the applicant continued receiving the minimum pension for persons whose insurance period exceeded thirty years, which by then had been raised to LVL 46.04 (approximately EUR 63).<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0As the applicant continued working, his aggregate insurance period reached forty-two years ten months and twenty-eight days. As of 1 August 2016 his monthly pension was raised to EUR\u00a0190.12, with an additional supplement of EUR\u00a037.85.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Administrative proceedings<\/em><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant challenged the decision of the State Social Insurance Agency of 11 September 2003 before the administrative courts, complaining that following the entry into force of the agreement between Latvia and Ukraine on cooperation in the field of social security and after he had acquired Latvian citizenship his pension had not increased. He also noted that all the circumstances forming the basis of his complaint had been set out in his initial application of 2 July 2003. Invoking paragraphs 13 and 33 of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions (see paragraphs 17-18 below) he requested that his pension be recalculated by taking into account the time he had worked in Ukraine.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 February 2005 the Administrative District Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s complaint. Having found that the crux of the applicant\u2019s complaint was the alleged failure to take into account the periods he had worked in Ukraine, the court reassessed the decision of the State Social Insurance Agency and concluded that his pension had been calculated correctly.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant appealed against this decision, stating that all the circumstances forming the basis of his complaint had been outlined in his initial application. The applicant invoked paragraphs 13 and 33 of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions. On 29 June 2006 the Administrative Regional Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law on the same grounds.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 December 2006 the Senate of the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Administrative Regional Court on the grounds that the court had not obtained and reviewed the applicant\u2019s initial application of 2\u00a0July 2003 to the State Social Insurance Agency. As a result, the court had not been able to clarify the exact scope of the applicant\u2019s complaint.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 May 2007 the Administrative Regional Court examined the applicant\u2019s complaint in oral proceedings. During his oral submissions the applicant emphasised that he requested that his pension be recalculated on the basis of the average salary in the country. His total employment period was forty-two years, whereas the Law on State Pensions required the insurance period to be no less than thirty years in order for the average monthly insurance wage in the State to be used in the calculation. Despite the fact he had worked for forty-two years, only seventeen years had been taken into account. The applicant concluded by stating: \u201cIf you are a citizen then everything is taken into account in the calculation, but if you are not\u00a0\u2011\u00a0then it is not.\u201d The respondent (that is to say the State Social Insurance Agency) then requested the applicant to clarify the scope of the complaint, to which he replied: \u201cI request the pension to be recalculated on the basis of the average salary in the country.\u201d<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 June 2007 the Administrative Regional Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s complaint. It observed that in his initial application of 2 July 2003 the applicant had requested that his pension be recalculated in accordance with general rules. It furthermore noted that the periods he had worked in Ukraine had been taken into account already since the agreement between Latvia and Ukraine on cooperation in the field of social security had entered in force. Furthermore, following the applicant\u2019s acquisition of Latvian citizenship the periods he had worked in Russia and had spent in military service had also been taken into account. The decision that was being challenged concerned the increase in the applicant\u2019s insurance period. Thus, the entirety of his insurance period of forty-one years eleven months and twenty-eight days had been taken into account in the calculation of his pension. In addition, the applicant was receiving the minimum State pension in the amount set for persons whose insurance period was above thirty years. With regard to paragraph 13 of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions the court noted that the applicant\u2019s pension had been calculated correctly, but in relation to paragraph 33 it observed that this provision was not applicable to the applicant owing to its temporal limitation.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0In his appeal on points of law the applicant again reiterated that all the circumstances that formed the basis of his claim had been set out in the initial application. He also stated that his pension had not been recalculated on the basis of the amendments to the Law on State Pensions that had entered into force on 1 January 2002. These changes applied to persons whose insurance period was above thirty years, whereas his insurance period amounted to more than forty years. Despite that, his own salary (instead of the average salary in the country) had been taken into account when calculating the level of the pension to which he had been entitled. The applicant referred to paragraphs 13 and 33 of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions, as well as to procedural provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 August 2007 the Senate of the Supreme Court rejected the applicant\u2019s appeal on points of law, noting that it contained no arguments as to how the judgment of the Administrative Regional Court had contravened the legal provisions he had referred to.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant domestic law and practice<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The Law on State Pensions<\/em><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The Law on State Pensions, which entered into force on 1 January 1996, provides that one of the components to be taken into account in the calculation and allocation of pensions is the \u201cinsurance period\u201d. Under section 1 of the Law on State Pensions, the insurance period is the period of time over which an insured person has made social insurance contributions or such contributions have been made or should have been made on that person\u2019s behalf.With regard to the time period prior to 1 January 1991 (when the social insurance system had not yet been established), paragraph\u00a01 of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions, as in force at time when it was applied to the applicant, provided:<\/p>\n \u201c1. In the case of Latvian citizens, repatriated persons, and their family members and their descendants, periods of employment and periods treated as equivalent to employment that have been accrued within or outside Latvia prior to 1 January 1991 shall count towards the insurance period, which is necessary for the allocation ([or] recalculation) of the State pension, irrespective of [any prior] payment of social insurance contributions. In the case of foreign nationals and stateless persons who were resident in Latvia on 1 January 1991, the insurance period shall be composed of periods of employment and periods treated as equivalent to employment that have been accrued within Latvia, as well as periods treated as equivalent to employment that have been accrued outside Latvia in the cases specified in sub-paragraphs (4), (5) and (10) of this paragraph. The following periods, which are treated as equivalent to employment accrued up to 1 January 1991 … shall be considered as counting towards the insurance period to be taken into account in calculating the pension:<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n (4) periods of study at higher-education institutions, and at other training institutions at post-secondary level;<\/p>\n (5) periods of doctoral study, … postgraduate education or ongoing vocational training;<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n (10) time spent in places of detention by victims of political persecution … [or] in exile, and time spent escaping from such places, those periods to be multiplied by three, or by five in the case of time spent in the [Soviet] Far North and regions treated as equivalent. …\u201d<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0Under paragraph 13 of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions, with respect to the transitional period, another component that is taken into account in the calculation of the pension is the person\u2019s average monthly insurance wage within a specified time period. Thus, with respect to persons who retired in 1998, that person\u2019s average monthly insurance wage over twenty-four months from 1996 until 1998 was taken into account. If, however, (i) the person\u2019s insurance period in Latvia was not less than thirty years (save for politically persecuted persons, in relation to whom a different methodology applied) and if the person\u2019s average monthly insurance wage for the last twenty-four months was below the average monthly insurance wage in the State in 1997, or (ii) the person had been officially unemployed, the average monthly insurance wage in the State in 1997 was taken into account in the calculation of his or her pension.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 January 2002 the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions were supplemented by paragraph 33, which provides that in calculating the pension payable to a person whose insurance period is not less than thirty years and whose average monthly insurance wage, as calculated in accordance with paragraph 13 of these transitional provisions, is lower than the average monthly insurance wage in the State in the period between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 1999, the average monthly insurance wage in the State over the said forty-eight months should be taken into account. The retrospective application of this provision is limited to pensions that were granted after 1 January 2000.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Application of paragraph 13 of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions<\/em><\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted a letter of 7 September 2016 from the Ministry of Welfare, the relevant part of which stated:<\/p>\n \u201c\u201cThe favourable model of calculating a person\u2019s pension\u201d enshrined in paragraph 13 of the transitional provision of the Law would not be applied to a Latvian citizen in the following situations:<\/p>\n 1) In January 1998 a Latvian citizen requests a retirement pension for a total insurance period of 32 years, of which 9 years are [accrued] in Latvia but 23 years [are accrued] in Georgia. The pension is calculated for 32 years but the average monthly insurance wage in the State is not taken into account in the calculation of the initial capital, as the insurance period in Latvia is below 30 years;<\/p>\n 2) In January 2016 a Latvian citizen requests a retirement pension for a total insurance period of 40 years, of which 24 years are [accrued] in Latvia but 16 years [are accrued] in Estonia. In accordance with the legislation, Latvia grants and pays the retirement pension only for the 24 years [accrued] in Latvia; accordingly, the average monthly insurance wage in the State is not taken into account in the calculation of the initial capital, as the insurance period for which Latvia pays is below 30 years;<\/p>\n 3) In January 2012 a Latvian citizen requests a retirement pension for a total insurance period of 38 years, of which 25 years are [accrued] in Latvia but 13 years [are accrued] in Belarus. In accordance with the Agreement between the Republic of Latvia and Belarus on the cooperation in the field of social security, Latvia grants the retirement pension only for the insurance period accrued in Latvia \u2013 the 25 years. Accordingly, the average monthly insurance wage in the State is not taken into account in the calculation of the initial capital, as the insurance period for which Latvia pays is below 30 years.\u201d<\/p>\n COMPLAINT<\/strong><\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 14 of the Convention, in essence, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that in the calculation of his retirement pension he had been discriminated against on the grounds of his lack of Latvian citizenship at the time that his pension had been allocated.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant argued that the manner in which his retirement pension had been calculated had been contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, in essence, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention. These provisions read:<\/p>\n Article 14 of the Convention<\/p>\n \u201cThe enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.\u201d<\/p>\n Article 1 of Protocol No. 1<\/p>\n \u201cEvery natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.<\/p>\n The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.\u201d<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the case was inadmissible. Firstly, they contended that the complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, as the applicant could not claim to have had a \u201clegitimate expectation\u201d of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Secondly, the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies, as in the administrative proceedings he had never invoked his rights under Article\u00a014 of the Convention. In particular, he had not claimed that he had been subjected to different treatment because of his legal status as a \u201cpermanently resident non-citizen\u201d of Latvia. With regard to the applicant\u2019s submission regarding his alleged lack of funds and skills, the Government pointed out that he had not sought legal aid in respect of the administrative proceedings in question. Lastly, the applicant had not challenged before the Constitutional Court the legal provisions that had been relied upon in the calculation of his pension.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant disagreed. With respect to the compatibility ratione materiae, the applicant invoked the cases of Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom ((dec.) [GC], nos. 65731\/01 and 65900\/01, \u00a7 55, ECHR 2005\u2011X) and Andrejeva v. Latvia ([GC], no. 55707\/00, \u00a7 80, ECHR 2009). In relation to the non-exhaustion argument, the applicant asserted that in his submissions to the State Social Insurance Agency and the administrative courts he had pointed out that in the calculation of his pension he had been discriminated against on the grounds of his citizenship. In particular, he had indicated that paragraph\u00a013 of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions used the term \u201cin Latvia\u201d, which was interpreted differently with respect to citizens and non-citizens. The applicant conceded that the documents he had submitted to the courts had been \u201cshort, formal, and very similar.\u201d As he was unable to draft in Latvian and had no funds to hire a lawyer, the applicant had solicited help from an NGO, but the documents prepared by it, owing to their simplicity, had not fully reflected his views. Nonetheless, the applicant had believed that the administrative courts, being guided by the principle of objective investigation, would adjudicate the case fairly. The applicant also referred to the oral submissions that he had made during the hearing of 22\u00a0May 2007, during which he had directly pointed to the difference between citizens and non-citizens (see paragraph 12 above). As to the Constitutional Court, the applicant submitted that the alleged violation had emanated from the interpretation of domestic legal provisions; hence, recourse to the Constitutional Court would not have constituted an effective remedy.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0Firstly, the Court notes that, in the light of its well-established case\u2011law, the applicant had a pecuniary interest falling within the ambit of Article\u00a01 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many other authorities, Stec and Others, cited above, \u00a7 53, ECHR 2006\u2011VI, and F\u00e1bi\u00e1n v. Hungary [GC], no. 78117\/13, \u00a7\u00a0117, ECHR 2017 (extracts)). Hence, Article 14 of the Convention is applicable to his complaint that this pecuniary interest had been infringed on the basis of his citizenship (compare Andrejeva, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 77-80). Thus, the Government\u2019s objection concerning compatibility ratione materiae is dismissed.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies the Court reiterates that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights. States are dispensed from answering before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system (see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no.\u00a013216\/05, \u00a7\u00a0115, ECHR 2015, and Larionovs and Tess v. Latvia (dec.), no.\u00a045520\/04, 25\u00a0November 2014). The rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently at Strasbourg should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16\u00a0September 1996, \u00a7 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011IV). If the complaint presented before the Court has not been put, either explicitly or in substance, to the national courts when it could have been raised in the exercise of a remedy available to the applicant, the national legal order has been denied the opportunity to address the Convention issue which the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies is intended to give it (see Azinas v.\u00a0Cyprus [GC], no.\u00a056679\/00, \u00a7\u00a038, ECHR 2004\u2011III).It is not sufficient that the applicant may have unsuccessfully exercised another remedy which could have overturned the impugned measure on other grounds not connected with the complaint of a violation of a Convention right. It is the Convention complaint which must have been aired at national level for there to have been exhaustion of \u201ceffective remedies\u201d (see Vu\u010dkovi\u0107 and Others v.\u00a0Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153\/11 and 29 others, \u00a7 75, 25\u00a0March 2014).<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The Court agrees with the applicant that his complaint, in the manner in which it was formulated before the domestic authorities and is currently raised before the Court, concerns the interpretation and application of domestic law. The Court has frequently held that the procedure in respect of an individual constitutional complaint in Latvia cannot serve as an effective remedy if the alleged violation results only from an erroneous application or interpretation of a legal provision, the content of which is not unconstitutional (see, for example, Schmidt v. Latvia, no. 22493\/05, \u00a7 61, 27\u00a0April 2017). Thus, given the particular circumstances of the case, and without prejudice to the possibility of challenging domestic legal provisions before the Constitutional Court in relation to a differently formulated complaint, the Court finds that in the present case it stands to be determined whether the applicant raised his discrimination complaint in the proceedings before the administrative courts.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the dispute in the present case centers on the interpretation of paragraph 13 of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions, which requires an insurance period of at least thirty years to be accrued in Latvia for the average monthly insurance wage in the State to be used in the calculation \u2013 a factor that would have increased the applicant\u2019s pension. From the applicant\u2019s submissions before the Court it can be seen that he believes that this requirement was interpreted in the light of paragraph 1 of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions, which distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens with respect to the periods worked and otherwise spent abroad that ought to be equated with insurance periods in Latvia (see paragraph 16 above). Hence, the applicant is of the view that with regard to Latvian citizens, the periods that they have worked abroad are taken into account in determining whether their insurance period \u201cin Latvia\u201d is higher than thirty years. The applicant believes that because he had the status of \u201cpermanently resident non\u2011citizen\u201d of Latvia at the time that his pension was allocated he was not in a position to profit from this more favorable interpretation. According to the applicant, this difference in treatment was not remedied after he acquired Latvian citizenship.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0Having examined the material before it the Court cannot conclude that this position was put before the domestic courts. The reasoning of the domestic courts indicates that they analysed the applicant\u2019s claim that the periods he had worked in Ukraine had not been taken into account in the calculation of his pension \u2013 namely, that the pension had not been calculated correctly. Despite that, in his appeals the applicant consistently limited himself to reiterating that the circumstances substantiating his claim had been outlined in his initial submissions, whereby he had only requested that his pension be calculated in accordance with the applicable rules. In none of his appeals did he indicate that the periods he had worked outside Latvia had not been taken into account in deciding whether his own or the average monthly insurance wage in the State should be taken into account in calculating his pension, let alone that (according to him) this had resulted in his being treated differently, as compared to persons who had held Latvian citizenship at the moment their pensions had been calculated.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The Court furthermore observes that the administrative courts took particular care to clarify the essence of the applicant\u2019s grievances: specifically, (i) the Senate of the Supreme Court annulled the judgment of the Administrative Regional Court so that the exact scope of the applicant\u2019s complaint could be established, (ii) the applicant\u2019s original application to the State Social Insurance Agency was obtained and reviewed, and (iii) the applicant was invited to make his submissions in an oral hearing (see paragraphs 11-13 above). At the hearing of 22 May 2007 the applicant submitted that he wished his pension to be calculated on the basis of the average monthly insurance wage in the State; however, he provided no explanation as to how the court should arrive at this conclusion or how a failure to do so would mean that persons who had Latvian citizenship at the moment of calculation of their pensions were treated differently than persons who, like the applicant, acquired Latvian citizenship later.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0Even though towards the end of his oral submissions the applicant made a statement implying that (according to him) citizens and non-citizens were subject to different rules when their pensions were calculated (see paragraph 12 above), this statement alone is not sufficient for the Court to conclude that the applicant outlined the discrimination of which he is now complaining in a manner such that the domestic courts could have addressed the technical and complex questions which potentially arise in this field in full knowledge of the scope and nature of the applicant\u2019s complaint. In particular, when asked to clarify his claim, the applicant complained, as he had done throughout the proceedings, about the manner in which his pension had been calculated and reiterated his request that the average monthly insurance wage in the State be used in the calculation of his pension. He provided no further explanation in respect of (i) his apparent assertion that \u201cpermanently resident non-citizens\u201d of Latvia were subject to less favorable treatment in the calculation of their pensions and (ii) what relevance that bore to his case, in view of the fact that he was a citizen of Latvia.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0Furthermore, even though the Administrative Regional Court did not address the applicant\u2019s aforementioned statement in its judgment of 14\u00a0June 2007, the applicant did not point to this fact in his appeal on points of law. Likewise, his appeal on points of law included no expression of his belief that citizens and non-citizens were treated differently in the calculation of their pensions and that he himself had been treated less favorably on the grounds of his lack of Latvian citizenship at the time that his pension was allocated (see paragraph 14 above). Hence, the applicant did not raise, at least in substance, his discrimination complaint before the Senate of the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The Court thus observes that the applicant aired for the first time before this Court his belief that paragraph\u00a013 of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions was interpreted in the light of paragraph 1 of those provisions.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the Court cannot establish that the applicant put before the domestic authorities his claim that he had been discriminated against on the basis of the time at which he had acquired his citizenship. Therefore, the domestic courts did not review the discrimination claim that is now brought before the Court.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0The Court is mindful of the applicant\u2019s assertion that he did not have sufficient command of Latvian language and that he had no funds with which to hire a lawyer. However, like the Government, it observes that there is no indication in the case file that the applicant attempted to acquire legal aid for the proceedings before the administrative courts.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0On the basis of the information before it, the Court cannot conclude that the national authorities were provided with an opportunity to address the violations alleged against them (contrast Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, no.\u00a030141\/04, \u00a7 69, ECHR 2010, and Mari\u0107 v. Croatia, no.\u00a050132\/12, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a052-53, 12 June 2014).<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously<\/p>\n Declares the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 14 June 2018.<\/p>\n Claudia Westerdiek\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Angelika Nu\u00dfberger
\nRegistrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n