RAMADAN v. MALTA JUDGMENT 19 citizenship on the basis of his own citizenship having been revoked, they too would become stateless. (b) The Government 75. The Government submitted that the Convention did not guarantee a right to acquire a particular citizenship and that the issue of whether an applicant had an arguable right to acquire the citizenship of a State must in principle be resolved by reference to the domestic law of that State. They referred to Petropavlovskis v. Latvia (no. 44230/06, § 83, ECHR 2015). 76. The measure at issue in the present case was in accordance with the law, namely the Maltese Citizenship Act, Chapter 188 of the Laws of Malta. The relevant provision at the time was Article 9 of the Act, which was identical to Article 14 of the amended Act (see “Relevant domestic law” above). Contrary to the applicant’s argument (see paragraph 70 above), the Government submitted that Article 27(2) of the Maltese Citizenship Act as amended in 2000, a transitory provision, dealt with “applications” for registration which had been lodged before 15 August 1999 and were still pending. In the case of the applicant, citizenship had already been granted before 15 August 1999; thus, when the amendments to the Maltese Citizenship Act were enacted, his application had already been processed. Consequently, he could not be considered “an applicant” in the sense of the domestic provision cited. 77. Contracting a marriage of convenience was considered to be perpetration of fraud. That had been the basis of the decision in respect of the applicant. Thus, the measure had not been arbitrary: the decision had been taken after the applicant had pleaded before the committee, produced evidence and made submissions – a procedural safeguard to protect him against any arbitrariness. Nor was the deprivation discriminatory: whenever the Department became aware that citizenship had been obtained by fraud, it took steps to deprive the individuals concerned of Maltese citizenship. 78. According to the Government, the Minister had deprived the applicant of his Maltese citizenship on the grounds that he had obtained Maltese citizenship by fraud, a serious act that was contrary to public order. Thus, the measure was aimed at the protection of public order, which was an intrinsic part of the public interest. Reference was made to the Court’s judgments in Antwi and Others v. Norway (no. 26940/10, § 104, 14 February 2012) and Boujlifa v. France (21 October 1997, § 43, Reports 1997-VI). In that light, the Minister’s order had been justified and necessary in a democratic society. Furthermore, even though the decision had not been based on this factor, the applicant also had a criminal record, having been found guilty of injuring his own wife. 79. The Government further argued that the deprivation of the applicant’s Maltese citizenship, which had been implemented immediately, had not adversely affected him since his trading licences had been