SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT undertaken by an entity operating in another country. The Convention imposed no specific obligation on the States to right injustices or harm caused before they had ratified the Convention, and the undertaking by the Latvian authorities to provide some compensation could not be interpreted as implying that there was an obligation incumbent on Latvia under international law to make any payments at all. 111. The applicants pointed out that this exact argument had already been raised by the Government in the case of Andrejeva, and had been rejected by the Court. They submitted that the applicants’ residence over the contested time periods was of no relevance for the issue of jurisdiction. (b) The Court’s assessment 112. The Court notes that this argument is identical in substance to the objection already raised by the respondent Government in the Andrejeva case and rejected by the Court in the following terms (ibid., § 57): “57. In the present case, the Court notes that the applicant complained about a measure taken in respect of her by a Latvian public authority – the State SocialInsurance Agency – refusing her part of the pecuniary benefit she had intended to draw from a Law passed by the Latvian Parliament. The dispute raised by the applicant in respect of that measure was examined by the three levels of Latvian courts, which delivered binding decisions on the subject. In the Court’s view, that is easily sufficient to warrant the conclusion that in the context of the present case, the applicant fell within the “jurisdiction” of the respondent State and that the Government’s objection should be dismissed (see, mutatis mutandis, Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, §§ 54-56, ECHR 2006-XIV) ...” 113. It is true that the applicants in the present case were not physically present in Latvia during the time periods in question, in contrast to Ms Andrejeva. However, this does not alter the fact that they, as permanent residents of Latvia, are still claiming a financial benefit under Latvian law and contesting decisions taken in their regard by the Latvian authorities, including courts. In these circumstances, the Court does not see any difference between Andrejeva and the present case for the purposes of “jurisdiction” within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention. As to the decision in the case of Likvidējamā p/s Selga and Vasiļevska, cited above and referred to by the respondent Government, the Court points out that the applicants in that case were owners of currency deposited with a foreign bank in another country; the key questions put before the Court were whether the respondent State could be held responsible for the freezing of those assets by that foreign bank, and whether it had any positive obligation under the Convention to take any particular measures in that respect (ibid., §§ 102 and 113). This being so, the Court fails to see the relevance of this reference for the issue at hand, these two cases being fundamentally different. 114. The Court therefore dismisses the respondent Government’s objection. Nevertheless, it considers that the arguments raised to support this objection are closely linked to the merits of the complaint under Article 14 of 40