SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT particular benefit on a discriminatory ground covered by Article 14, the relevant test is whether, but for the condition of entitlement about which the applicant complains, he or she would have had a right, enforceable under domestic law, to receive the benefit in question ... Although [Article 1 of] Protocol No. 1 does not include the right to receive a social security payment of any kind, if a State does decide to create a benefits scheme, it must do so in a manner which is compatible with Article 14.’ 80. It follows that the applicant’s pecuniary interests fall within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions which it safeguards. This is sufficient to render Article 14 of the Convention applicable.” 122. The Court does not see any difference between the case of Andrejeva and the present case regarding the applicability ratione materiae of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. According to the Court’s well-established case-law, the prohibition of discrimination enshrined in Article 14 generally applies where a Contracting State has in force legislation providing for the payment as of right of a pension or another welfare benefit; that legislation must be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for persons satisfying its requirements. If, but for the condition of entitlement under domestic law about which the applicant complains, he or she would have had a right enforceable under domestic law to receive the benefit in question, his or her complaint falls within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that is sufficient to render Article 14 of the Convention applicable ratione materiae (see J.D. and A.v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 63). This being so, the Court cannot but dismiss the respondent Government’s objection for the same reasons as stated in §§ 77-80 of the Andrejeva judgment (see also, mutatis mutandis, Gaygusuz v. Austria (16 September 1996, § 40, Reports 1996-IV); Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 88, ECHR 2011; Fábián, cited above, § 117; and Ribać v. Slovenia, no. 57101/10, §§ 43-45, 15 December 2017). 123. As to the particular questions raised by the respondent Government, namely, to what extent the Court’s overall reasoning in Andrejeva was conditioned by the particular factual circumstances of that case, whether it is transposable to the present case, and whether the applicants might have had any “legitimate expectations” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 given their physical absence from the Latvian territory during the contested periods, these relate to the merits of the application and will be examined by the Court under the respective head. 3. Six-month time-limit (a) The parties’ arguments 124. The respondent Government referred to the decisions whereby the second, the fourth and the fifth applicants had initially been granted their retirement pensions. As these applicants had not appealed against the relevant decisions, they had entered into force and should be regarded as the “final 44