12 RAMADAN v. MALTA JUDGMENT precluded a Member State from refusing a work permit and the right of residence within its territory to a third-country national upon whom his minor children, who were nationals and residents of that Member State, were dependent, in so far as such decisions deprived those children of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of citizen of the Union. THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 49. The applicant complained that the decision to divest him of his Maltese citizenship had not been made in accordance with the law. It had interfered with his right to private and family life and exposed him to the risk of being separated from his family. The decision had not been accompanied by the relevant procedural safeguards as required under Article 8 of the Convention and the State had failed to fulfil its positive obligation to protect his rights under that provision. Lastly, the applicant complained that the decision had left him stateless. He thus had to live in a state of uncertainty, where he could not even leave the country for fear of not being let back in. The provision reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 50. The Government contested that argument. A. Admissibility 1. Victim status (a) The parties’ submissions 51. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a “victim” in terms of Article 34 of the Convention. They contended that an applicant could be considered a victim only if the State had already decided to take steps against him, and interference would come about only upon the execution or implementation of that decision. In the present case, despite the lack of any interim measure by the Court, no removal order was awaiting execution or implementation, as no such order had been issued, and no