20 RAMADAN v. MALTA JUDGMENT continuously renewed and he had continued to make use of a Maltese passport. Reference was made to the Court’s findings in, inter alia, Riener v. Bulgaria (no. 46343/99, § 155, 23 May 2006). In the present case (until the time of filing observations), it transpired that the applicant had not been hindered in his movement in and outside Malta. Indeed, he had continued to work in Malta and to reside there with his new family. Thus, in view of the above, there had not been an interference with the applicant’s rights. Also, the Government submitted that the applicant could apply for a work permit which was valid for a period of time and renewable on request, and subsequently obtain a residence permit on that basis. Furthermore, once his immigration status had been regularised, he would be eligible for long-term residence status after five years of legal stay. However, the applicant had not attempted to pursue any of those avenues. Nor had he provided any information as to the possibility of reacquiring Egyptian nationality, or proved that this was impossible. Furthermore, if he feared returning to Egypt, he could have applied for refugee status or humanitarian protection. 80. In so far as the applicant complained about the State’s positive obligations, the Government submitted that he had to prove the existence of private and family life at the time when the impugned measure had been adopted (they referred to Boujlifa, cited above, § 36). Thus, in the Government’s view, the date to be considered for this purpose was that when the grounds for the deprivation of citizenship had materialised, namely 16 January 1998. 81. However, the committee conducting inquiries had found that the applicant had had no relationship with his first son. Nor had he, in 1998, had any relationship with the woman who was to become his second wife. Consequently, the applicant could not argue that he had had a “family life” in 1998. As in the case of Adeishvili Mazmishvili v. Russia (no. 43553/10, § 82-83, 16 October 2014), the applicant’s relationship with his second wife had developed at a time when they were both aware of his precarious position as far as his citizenship was concerned. 82. The Government considered that the applicant was to blame for not having informed the Department for Citizenship and Expatriate Affairs, at the relevant time, about the judgment annulling his first marriage. It was not for the Government to keep abreast of such developments, which were dealt with by different authorities, and the applicant’s failure to inform the authorities only showed his bad faith. The Government submitted that once the matter had come to the attention of the relevant authorities, they had started investigations. While it was true that the process had encountered some difficulties and thus some delay, this was due to the fact that it related to events that had happened ten years earlier. 83. Distinguishing between a removal order and deprivation of citizenship, in the absence of any adverse effects on the applicant, the Government were of the view that the Maltese authorities did not have a