24 RAMADAN v. MALTA JUDGMENT the applicant from the obligation to exhaust relevant remedies. The Court cannot but note a pattern of inaction on the part of the applicant. 94. Given the above considerations, an assessment of the State’s negative obligations under Article 8 of the Convention is not warranted in the present case. Nor does the Court need to assess the State’s positive obligations, given that as the situation stands the applicant runs no risk of being deported (see paragraphs 54 and 56 above). 95. Bearing in mind the situation as it currently stands, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT 1. Declares, unanimously, the complaint concerning the revocation of the applicant’s citizenship admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible; 2. Holds, by five votes to two, that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 June 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Marialena Tsirli Registrar András Sajó President In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the following are annexed to this judgment: (a) dissenting opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque; (b) statement of dissent by Judge Zupančič. A.S. M.T.