Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-09T10:46:10.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protection of Constitutional Identity as a Legitimate Aim for Differential Treatment

ECtHR 9 June 2022, No. 49270/11, Savickis and Others v Latvia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2023

Ignatius Yordan Nugraha Open the ORCID record for Ignatius Yordan Nugraha [Opens in a new window]
Ignatius Yordan Nugraha*
Affiliation:
PhD Research Fellow, Hasselt University, Belgium
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Notes
Information
European Constitutional Law Review , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2023 , pp. 141 - 162
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the University of Amsterdam

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In this regard, the Court has observed that Art. 14 ECHR ‘complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and the Protocols. It has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to ‘the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms’ safeguarded by those provisions. Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions – and to this extent it is autonomous – there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of them’. See ECtHR 19 April 2007, No. 63235/00, Vilho Eskelinen and Others v Finland, para. 95.

2 ‘World War II: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (August 23, 1939)’, Jewish Virtual Library, ⟨https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-molotov-ribbentrop-pact-august-1939⟩, visited 22 January 2023.

3 ECtHR 9 June 2022, No. 49270/11, Savickis and Others v Latvia, para. 18.

4 ECRI Report on Latvia (Fifth Monitoring Cycle), CRI(2019)1, 5 March 2019, para. 55, ⟨https://rm.coe.int/fifth-report-on-latvia/1680934a9f⟩, visited 22 January 2023.

5 Section 12 of the Citizenship Law, ⟨https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/57512-citizenship-law⟩, visited 22 January 2023.

6 ECRI Report on Latvia (Fourth Monitoring Cycle), CRI(2012)3, 21 February 2012, p. 32 fn. 60 ⟨https://rm.coe.int/fourth-report-on-latvia/16808b58b6⟩, visited 22 January 2023.

7 ECRI, supra n. 4, para. 56.

8 Ibid., para. 59.

9 ECRI Conclusions on the Implementation of the Recommendations in Respect of Latvia Subject to Interim Follow-Up, CRI(2021)26, 5 October 2021, p. 4 ⟨https://www.ecoi.net/en/file/local/2061484/LAT-IFU-V-2021-26-ENG.pdf⟩, visited 22 January 2023.

10 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, paras. 19-38.

11 Ibid., para. 18.

12 Ibid., para. 39.

13 Ibid., para. 67.

14 Ibid., para. 56.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid., paras. 81 and 162.

17 ECtHR 18 February 2009, No. 55707/00, Andrejeva v Latvia, paras. 10-15.

18 Ibid., para. 92.

19 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, paras. 44-45.

20 Ibid., para. 46.

21 Ibid., para. 48.

22 Satversmes tiesa 17 February 2011, Case No 2010-20-0106, The Old Age Pension (Non-citizens), paras. 11.1-11.3, cited in Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, para. 53.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, para. 5.

28 Ibid., para. 122.

29 Ibid., para. 181.

30 Ibid., para. 183.

31 Ibid., para. 193.

32 Andrejeva v Latvia, supra n. 17, para. 86.

33 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, para. 196.

34 Ibid., para. 197; Andrejeva v Latvia, supra n. 17, para. 86.

35 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, para. 198.

36 Ibid., para. 196.

37 Ibid., para. 198.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid., para. 207.

40 Ibid., para. 208.

41 Ibid., para. 209.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid., para. 210. See also ECtHR 27 November 2007, No. 77782/01, Luczak v Poland.

44 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, para. 210. See also ECtHR 15 September 2016, No. 44818/11, British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others v the United Kingdom, paras. 84-85.

45 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, para. 211.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid. para. 212.

49 Ibid. para. 217.

50 Ibid. para. 218.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid.

53 Ibid. para. 215.

54 Ibid.

55 Andrejeva v Latvia, supra n. 17, para. 91.

56 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, para. 213.

57 Ibid. para. 219.

58 Ibid. para. 221.

59 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, Concurring Opinion of Wojtyczek.

60 Andrejeva v Latvia, supra n. 17, Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Ziemele.

61 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges O’Leary, Grozev and Lemmens, para. 8.

62 Ibid., para. 18.

63 Ibid.

64 Ibid.

65 Ibid., para. 19.

66 Ibid., para. 17.

67 Ibid., para. 24.

68 Ibid.

69 Ibid, emphasis added.

70 The article reads ‘The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government’.

71 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges O’Leary, Grozev and Lemmens, para. 24.

72 Ibid.

73 Ibid., para. 25.

74 Ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Seibert-Fohr, Joined by Judges Turković, Lubarda and Chanturia, paras. 1-3.

75 Ibid., para 12.

76 Ibid., para 13.

77 Ibid., para 14.

78 S. Ganty and D.V. Kochenov, ‘Citizenship Imposition is the New Non-Discrimination Standard: ECtHR Blames the Victims in Savickis’, Verfassungsblog, 22 July 2022, ⟨https://verfassungsblog.de/savickis/⟩, visited 22 January 2023.

79 See F. Fabbrini and A. Sajó, ‘The Dangers of Constitutional Identity’, 25 European Law Journal (2019) p. 457 at p. 459-461; J. Scholtes, ‘Abusing Constitutional Identity’, 22 German Law Journal (2021) p. 534 at p. 535.

80 Russian Constitutional Court 19 April 2016, Judgment No. 12-P/2016.

81 ECtHR 4 July 2013, Nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, Anchugov and Gladkov v Russia, para. 108.

82 A. Padskocimaite, ‘Assessing Russia’s Responses to Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: From Compliance to Defiance’, in R. Grote et al. (eds.), Research Handbook on Compliance in International Human Rights Law (Edward Elgar 2021) p. 136 at p. 175.

83 Art. 32(3) Russian Constitution.

84 Judgment No. 12-P/2016, supra n. 80, para. 4.4.

85 Ibid., para. 1.2 (emphasis added).

86 Art. 27 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

87 K. Schmalenbach, ‘Article 27: Internal Law and Observance of Treaties’, in O. Dörr and K. Schmalenbach (eds.), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary, 2nd edn, (Springer 2018) p. 493 at p. 499.

88 Art. 1 ECHR.

89 Anchugov and Gladkov v Russia, supra n. 81, para. 108.

90 Scholtes, supra n. 79, p. 540.

91 M. Rosenfeld, ‘Constitutional Identity’, in M. Rosenfeld and A. Sajó (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press 2012) p. 756. See also T. Drinóczi, ‘Constitutional Identity in Europe: The Identity of the Constitution. A Regional Approach’, 21 German Law Journal (2020) p. 105 at p. 116.

92 G. Jacobsohn, Constitutional Identity (Harvard University Press 2010) p. 7.

93 Art. 4(2) TEU; Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges O’Leary, Grozev and Lemmens, para. 24.

94 See Y. Roznai, Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment (Oxford University Press 2017) p. 148-149; P. Faraguna, ‘Identity’, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Comparative Constitutional Law, March 2020, paras. 12 and 17, ⟨https://oxcon.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law-mpeccol/law-mpeccol-e792⟩, visited 22 January 2023.

95 Art. 139 Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana.

96 K. Kovács, ‘The Rise of an Ethnocultural Constitutional Identity in the Jurisprudence of the East Central European Courts’, 18 German Law Journal (2017) p. 1703.

97 F. Millet, ‘L’Union européenne et l’identité constitutionnelle des Etats membres’ [The European Union and the Constitutional Identity of Member States] (European University Institute 2012), p. 135-136, ⟨https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/27788⟩, visited 22 January 2023.

98 See Faraguna, supra n. 94, para. 10.

99 See E. Bjorge, Domestic Application of the ECHR: Courts as Faithful Trustees (Oxford University Press 2015) p. 202-222.

100 ECtHR 16 March 2006, No. 58278/00, Ždanoka v Latvia, para. 96, emphasis added.

101 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, para. 198.

102 Fabbrini and Sajó, supra n. 79, p. 467-469.

103 Ibid., p. 468.

104 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges O’Leary, Grozev and Lemmens, para. 24.

105 Jacobsohn, supra n. 92, p. 13.

106 Ibid.

107 As an illustration of a ‘particularly inventive interpretation’, see the Russian Constitutional Court’s judgment which declared the ECtHR judgment in the Yukos case to be non-executable, despite the impugned law not attaining the rank of a constitutional law: Russian Constitutional Court 19 January 2017, Judgment No. 1-P/2017; K. Dzehtsiarou and F. Fontanelli, ‘Unprincipled Disobedience to International Decisions: A Primer from the Russian Constitutional Court’, in W. Benedek et al. (eds.), European Yearbook on Human Rights 2018 (Intersentia 2018) p. 319 at p. 327-328.

108 ECJ 16 February 2022, Case C-156/21, Hungary v European Parliament and Council of the European Union.

109 Ibid., para. 127.

110 Ibid., para. 233.

111 Ibid., para. 234.

112 P. Faraguna and T. Drinóczi, ‘Constitutional Identity in and on EU Terms’, Verfassungsblog, 21 February 2022, ⟨https://verfassungsblog.de/constitutional-identity-in-and-on-eu-terms/⟩, visited 22 January 2023.

113 Art. 17 ECHR. See also ECtHR 2 February 2016, No. 79917/13, Bîrsan v Romania, para. 71.

114 See ECtHR 28 November 2017, No. 72508/13, Merabishvili v Georgia, para. 307.

115 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, paras. 98 and 102.

116 Ibid., para. 207.

117 Ganty and Kochenov, supra n. 78; S. Ganty and D.V. Kochenov, ‘‘It’s their own fault’: the new non-discrimination standard in Savickis v. Latvia is about blaming minorities for their state-mandated statelessness’, Strasbourg Observers, 5 August 2022, ⟨https://strasbourgobservers.com/2022/08/05/its-their-own-fault-the-new-non-discrimination-standard-in-savickis-v-latvia-is-about-blaming-minorities-for-their-state-mandated-statelessness/⟩, visited 22 January 2023; Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges O’Leary, Grozev and Lemmens, para. 8.

118 J.H. Gerards, ‘Savickis e.a. t. Letland’, EHRC: European Human Rights Cases Updates, 26 September 2022, para. 16, ⟨https://www.ehrc-updates.nl/commentaar/212200?skip_boomportal_auth=1⟩, visited 22 January 2023.

119 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, para. 198.

120 Ibid., para. 202.

121 Ibid., para. 215.

122 Ibid., para. 88.

123 Ibid.

124 Ganty and Kochenov, supra n. 78.

125 Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia [1989] 1 SCR 143, 195.

126 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges O’Leary, Grozev and Lemmens, para. 6.

127 Andrejeva v Latvia, supra n. 17, Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Ziemele.

128 Ibid., para. 26.

129 Savickis and Others v Latvia, supra n. 3, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Seibert-Fohr, Joined by Judges Turković, Lubarda and Chanturia, para. 12.

130 Gerards, supra n. 118, para. 17.

131 ECtHR 21 July 2015, Nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11, Oliari and Others v Italy, paras. 177-178.

132 Merabishvili v Georgia, supra n. 114, para. 294.

133 ECtHR 27 August 2015, No. 46470/11, Parrillo v Italy, para. 163.

134 Ganty and Kochenov, supra n. 78.

135 See G. Letsas, A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2007) p. 5.