Third section

§§ 64-71, 22 January 2019) and 
Ghoumid and Others v. France
(nos. 52273/16 and 4 others, §§ 45-52, 25 June 2020), the Court did not 
explicitly address the issue of the applicability of Article 8, but examined 
whether the denial or revocation was arbitrary 
and
what the consequences 
were for the applicant, in order to conclude that the complaint was well-
founded or (manifestly) ill-founded.
The majority in the present case follow the methodology in the third 
group of cases. They refer to the judgment adopted by the Grand Chamber 
in 
Denisov v. Ukraine
([GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 107-09, 25 September 2018) 
to justify their choice for the “consequence-based approach” in order to 
determine whether or not there has been an interference with the right to 
respect for private life (see paragraph 58 of the judgment). No specific 
justification is given for the “arbitrariness approach” in examining the 
merits of the complaint (ibid.).
6. There is confusion not only with respect to the general approach to 
determining whether a denial or revocation of citizenship constitutes an 
interference with the right to respect for private life and whether Article 8 of 
the Convention has been violated. The two elements used in each of the 
various forms of reasoning (arbitrariness, impact) are themselves also 
sources of confusion.
7. We will begin with the arbitrariness element.
Arbitrariness is something to be avoided, and protection against arbitrary 
interference is in general referred to by the Court as one of the elements of 
the required quality of the “law”, as the latter word is used in the phrase “in 
accordance with the law” or similar phrases (see, among many other 
judgments, 
Mihalache v. Romania
[GC], no. 54012/10, § 112, 8 July 2019, 
Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary
[GC], no. 201/17, § 93, 20 January 
2020, and 
Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania 
[GC], no. 80982/12,