ALPEYEVA AND DZHALAGONIYA v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 23 valid passport in 2010, found themselves not only in a situation comparable to that in Smirnova, cited above, but also having to face consequences affecting their social identity far more fundamentally. As a result of the FMS’s decision to the effect that they had never properly acquired Russian citizenship, the applicants were deprived of any legal status in Russia (see paragraph 81 above). They became stateless persons, and remained so until 2010 and 2013 respectively, when Russian citizenship was granted to each of them under a new procedure. 126. Therefore, even though the authorities may be considered to have acted appropriately, once the scale and importance of the problem were recognised, in the Court’s view, it remains the case that it took from 2007, when the Ombudsman drew attention to the issue, until 2013 for the general problem to be resolved. The fact that an oversight on the part of the authorities resulted in consequences for the applicants so severely affecting their private life amounts to an interference which was arbitrary. Hence the authorities failed to act diligently. (c) Conclusion 127. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 128. The second applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings he had instituted to challenge the refusal to exchange his passport had been unfair. In so far as relevant, Article 6 reads: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” 129. The Court reiterates that the right to a passport is not a civil right for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention (see Peltonen v. Finland, no. 19583/92, Commission decision of 20 February 1995; Karassev and family v. Finland, no. 31414/96, Commission decision of 14 April 1998; Šoć v. Croatia (dec.), no. 47863/99, 29 June 2000; Sergey Smirnov v. Russia (dec.), no. 14085/04, 6 July 2006; and Lolova and Popova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 68053/10, § 57, 20 January 2015). 130. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.