Third section

§ 43, 46 and 54)).
(i) Consequences for the applicant
59. Firstly, the decision to annul the applicant’s Russian citizenship 
deprived him of any legal status in Russia.
60. Secondly, he was left without any valid identity documents. In 
Smirnova v. Russia
(nos
. 
46133/99 and 48183/99, § 97, ECHR 2003-IX 
(extracts)), the Court found that Russian citizens had to prove their identity 
unusually often in their everyday life, even when performing such mundane 
tasks as exchanging currency or buying train tickets, and that the internal 
passport was also required for more crucial needs, such as finding 
employment or receiving medical care. In 
Alpeyeva and Dzhalagoniya
(cited above, §§ 70 and 114), the Court also noted that failure to possess a 
valid identity document was punishable by a fine under Article 19.15 of the 
CAO. The deprivation of passports in those cases had therefore amounted to 
interferences with the applicants’ private lives. The annulment of the 
applicant’s passports in the instant case had the same effect.
61. Furthermore, the annulment of the applicant’s citizenship was a 
precondition for the imposition of the entry ban on him and the decision to 
remove him from Russian territory (see paragraphs 20 and 25 above) 
(contrast 
Ramadan v. Malta
, cited above, §§ 20, 26, 87-89, 21 June 2016).
62. The annulment of the applicant’s Russian citizenship therefore 
amounted to an interference with the rights enshrined in Article 8.
(ii) Whether the measure was arbitrary
63. In determining arbitrariness, the Court should examine whether the 
impugned measure was in accordance with the law; whether it was 
accompanied by the necessary procedural safeguards, including whether the 
person deprived of citizenship was allowed the opportunity to challenge the 
decision before courts affording the relevant guarantees; and whether the 
authorities acted diligently and swiftly (see 
Ramadan
, cited above,