SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT the Convention. Accordingly, just as it did in the Andrejeva case, the Court will have regard to them in determining whether there has been a violation of that Article (ibid., § 57 in fine). 2. Compatibility ratione materiae (a) The parties’ arguments (i) The respondent Government 115. The respondent Government submitted that the application was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, as an alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had to relate to “possessions”, as defined by the case-law of the Court. There was no right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to receive a social security benefit or pension payment of any kind or amount, unless national law provided for such an entitlement. 116. The respondent Government recognised that the Court had dismissed this argument in the Andrejeva case. However, they emphasised the nature of the alleged property right and the lack of legitimate expectations. Firstly, the additional undertaking by Latvia to provide financial compensation for the years of employment under the jurisdiction of the former Soviet Union in order to redress, at least in some way, the consequences of the years of unlawful occupation, could not be regarded as creating a property right for the applicants falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The geopolitical and historical context ought not to be disregarded by the Court. The Court’s competence in the field of social security was not broad enough to make a State responsible for pecuniary interests originating under the jurisdiction of another State, particularly in view of the margin of appreciation afforded to States with regard to general measures of economic and social strategy. The applicants’ claims fell within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention only to the extent that the transitional provisions of the State Pensions Act granted them the right to receive retirement pension concerning the periods of employment in the territory of Latvia. 117. Moreover, the applicants could not have expected, and in fact did not expect, that Latvia would accept any responsibility for the employment periods in the territory of the former USSR. Ms Andrejeva had actually worked and resided in the territory of Latvia during the impugned time periods and had truly believed that these employment periods would be regarded as having been carried out in the territory of Latvia. She had immediately challenged before the administrative court the refusal to include those periods in the calculation of her pension. In contrast, the applicants in the present case had not challenged the accuracy of the calculations and interpretation of the domestic law in their regard. This demonstrated that the applicants had been fully aware that the domestic law had not entitled them to a retirement pension for their employment in the territory of the former 41