SUDITA KEITA v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT which were not in compliance with the relevant provisions of international law, had prevented him from regularising his situation for a protracted period of time. (b) The Government 28. The Government disagreed. They submitted in particular that the applicant’s situation had ultimately been resolved by virtue of the Constitutional Court’s ruling. 29. In the Government’s view, even up until that moment in time, the difficulties the applicant might have encountered had not been of the kind or of a degree that would represent a disproportionate burden from the perspective of Article 8 of the Convention. That Article could not, at any rate, be interpreted as requiring a Contracting State to grant stateless status to a person. 30. Furthermore, the Government submitted that the authorities had applied the relevant law correctly at all stages of the various procedures and that the applicant’s right to marry had not been hampered by the fact that he had had no legal entitlement to remain in the country. 2. The Court’s assessment (a) General principles 31. The general principles relevant to the present application have recently been outlined in Hoti v. Croatia (no. 63311/14, §§ 119-123, 26 April 2018) as follows: “119. At the outset, the Court reiterates that Article 8 protects, inter alia, the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and can sometimes embrace aspects of an individual’s social identity. Thus, the totality of social ties between a migrant and the community in which he or she lives constitutes part of the concept of private life under Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis, Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, § 63, ECHR 2008, and Abuhmaid [v. Ukraine, no. 31183/13, § 102, 12 January 2017]). 120. Nevertheless, according to the Court’s case-law, the Convention does not guarantee the right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country and Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see, amongst many other authorities, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 73, Reports of Judgments and Decisons 1996‑V; Üner [v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006‑XII]; Slivenko [v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 115, ECHR 2003-X]; Kurić and Others [v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 355, ECHR 2012 (extracts)], and Abuhmaid, cited above, § 101). 121. Moreover, neither Article 8 nor any other provision of the Convention can be construed as guaranteeing, as such, the right to the granting of a particular type of residence permit, provided that a solution offered by the authorities allows the individual concerned to exercise without obstacles his or her right to respect for 6