22 ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 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). The Court notes, nevertheless, that the parties’ arguments as set out above are closely linked to the merits of the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention. It will therefore have regard to them in determining whether there has been a violation of that Article. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 58. The applicant complained that the application in her case of paragraph 1 of the transitional provisions of the State Pensions Act, which made a distinction on the basis of nationality between those in receipt of retirement pensions, constituted discrimination prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention in the exercise of her right of property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of those provisions read as follows: Article 14 “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as ... national or social origin, association with a national minority ... birth or other status.” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 “1. Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” A. The parties’ submissions 1. The applicant 59. The applicant first reiterated her arguments concerning Latvia’s responsibility for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention (see