ALPEYEVA AND DZHALAGONIYA v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 15 passport, they could not find employment or receive medical assistance, pensions or social benefits. Article 8 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.” A. The Government’s submissions 91. The Government argued firstly that the applicants had abused the right of individual petition, having failed to inform the Court that they had been granted Russian citizenship on 14 April 2009 and 23 April 2013 respectively, in breach of their duty under Rule 47 § 7 (formerly Rule 47 § 6) of the Rules of Court to keep the Court informed of all circumstances relevant to the application. In the Government’s view, this constituted an essential element in the examination of the applicants’ complaints, complaints which should thus be declared inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4. 92. As regards application no. 7549/09, the Government conceded that the seizure of the first applicant’s Russian passport had constituted an interference with her rights under Article 8 of the Convention. However, they argued that even though the procedure relating to the seizure of her Russian passport had been found to be unlawful, this did not apply to the fact of the seizure as such. That decision had been well-founded and based on the fact that the first applicant had not properly acquired Russian citizenship. The interference had thus been lawful and necessary in a democratic society. Furthermore, the first applicant had eventually been granted Russian citizenship under a simplified procedure. 93. As regards application no. 33330/11, in the Government’s view, there had been no interference with the second applicant’s rights for the purposes of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention. In contrast to Smirnova v. Russia (nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)), his passport had not been seized, so he had retained an identity document, and he had failed to show how the refusal to exchange his passport had affected his rights and freedoms. Furthermore, the second applicant had at all times been provided with appropriate advice from State agencies concerning his situation, and had eventually applied for and been granted Russian citizenship in 2013, and a new Russian passport had been issued to him. 94. The Government further argued that the two cases at hand were substantially different from the case of Smirnova. In the latter case, the applicant had been a Russian citizen, whereas in the present case the