Third section

§§ 86-94, 21 June 2016), the Court examined both whether the denial or 
revocation was arbitrary 
and
whether there were serious consequences for 
the applicant, in order to determine whether an issue arose (
Karassev
) or 
whether an assessment of the State’s obligations under Article 8 was 
warranted (
Ramadan
, § 94);
- in 
Fedorova and Others v. Latvia
((dec.), no. 69405/01, 9 October 
2003, 
Kolosovskiy v. Latvia
((dec.), no. 50183/99, 29 January 2004, and 
Ivanov v. Latvia
((dec.), no. 55933/00, 25 March 2004), which all dealt with 
an alleged denial of citizenship, the Court concluded from the absence of 
arbitrariness that Article 8 was not applicable, without going into the issue 
of the impact on the applicant’s private life;
- in 
Genovese v. Malta
(no. 53124/09, § 33, 11 October 2011), it 
concluded from the impact of the denial on the private life of the applicant 
that the measure fell within the scope of Article 8, without mentioning the 
arbitrariness of the measure as a possible factor triggering the applicability 
of Article 8; similarly, in 
Alpeyeva and Dzhalagoniya v. Russia
(nos. 7549/09 and 33330/11, §§ 111-27, 12 June 2018) and 
Ahmadov 

---

USMANOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION
22
v. Azerbaijan
(no. 32538/10, §§ 46-55), 30 January 2020), the Court first 
examined the consequences of the denial in order to decide whether or not 
there was an interference with the right to respect for private life, and, after 
finding that the measure indeed amounted to an interference, then went on 
to examine, on the merits, whether the measure was arbitrary
- in 
Savoia and Bounegru v. Italy
((dec.), no. 8407/05, 11 July 2006), 
K2 v. the United Kingdom
((dec.), no. 42387/13, 52-64, 7 February 2017), 
Mansour Said Abdul Salam Mubarak v. Denmark
((dec.), no. 74411/16,