SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT are or might be affected by the legislation (see, for example, Carson and Others, § 62; Stec and Others, §§ 50-67; Burden, §§ 58-66; and Andrejeva, §§ 74-92, all cited above). Rather, the Court’s role is to determine the question of principle, namely whether the legislation as such unlawfully discriminates between persons who are in an analogous situation (Carson and Others, § 62, and British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others, § 63, both cited above). (b) Application to the present case 189. The Court has already found that the facts of the case fall within the ambit of the substantive article – here, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – and that Article 14 of the Convention is therefore applicable to the applicants’ complaint (see paragraphs 121-122 above). It remains for the Court to determine, firstly, whether the impugned difference in treatment is based on at least one of the protected grounds set out in Article 14 of the Convention; secondly, whether the applicants are in a relevantly similar situation to that of the respective comparator group, i.e., Latvian citizens; thirdly, whether that difference pursued a legitimate aim; and, fourthly, whether it was proportionate to that aim, satisfying the requirement of a “reasonable and objective justification” for that difference in treatment (see, mutatis mutandis, Vrountou v. Cyprus, no. 33631/06, § 61, 13 October 2015). 190. As regards the applicants’ factual situation, their circumstances can be summarised as follows. All the applicants, with the exception of the third applicant who moved to Latvia when he was three, moved to Latvia and settled there in the course of their adult lives. In the absence of a relevant bilateral agreement, the impact on the second applicant of excluding the entire period of his employment in Azerbaijan, where he worked before settling in Latvia, has not been mitigated by any subsequent measure. The same is true for the period of his military service prior to his settlement in Latvia (see paragraphs 21-24 above). The fourth applicant, who retired in 2008, subsequently benefitted from the recalculation of her retirement pension following the conclusion of the bilateral agreement with Russia, whereby her periods of employment in Russia were taken into account with effect from June 2011. As a result, the remaining impact of the difference concerns the amount of the retirement pension she received during the period of about 3 years and 3 months between the start of her retirement in 2008 and the recalculation in 2011, and the amount relating to the employment period in her native Uzbekistan (about eight years), which remains excluded (see paragraphs 29-33 above). The fifth applicant, who started receiving her retirement pension in 2005, also benefitted from the recalculation in 2011 as far as her employment periods in Russia were concerned. As a result, the remaining impact of the difference concerns the amount of the retirement pension she received during the period of about seven years between the start of her retirement in 2005 and the recalculation in 2011, and the amount 63