24 TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT manner which renders its safeguards practical and effective (see, inter alia, Soering, cited above, § 87, and Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37). In assessing whether an applicant can claim to be a genuine victim of an alleged violation, account should be taken not only of the formal position at the time when the application was lodged with the Court but of all the circumstances of the case in question, including any developments prior to the date of the examination of the case by the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 69, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV). 106. With these elements in mind, the Court considers that the question whether an applicant has victim status falls to be determined at the time of the Court’s examination of the case where such an approach is justified in the circumstances. In this respect, it refers to its case-law on loss of victim status where it has examined objections raised by respondent Governments that steps taken by or in the respondent State subsequent to the lodging of the application with the Court afforded adequate redress for the alleged violation such that the applicant could no longer be considered a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention (see, for example, Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports 1996-III; Chevrol v. France, no. 49636/99, §§ 37-43, ECHR 2003-III; Siliadin v. France, no. 73316/01, §§ 54 and 63, ECHR 2005-VII; and Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, §§ 36-39, 1 February 2007). In a number of cases, applications have been ruled inadmissible or struck out of the list where such subsequent steps have provided adequate redress to the applicant, who has accordingly lost his victim status (see, for example, Conrad v. Germany, no. 13020/87, Commission decision of 13 April 1988, DR 56; Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I; and Ohlen v. Denmark (striking out), no. 63214/00, §§ 28-31, 24 February 2005). The Court will therefore examine whether the applicant has victim status for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. 107. In the present case, the Court notes that the impugned Law entered into force in May 2008 (see paragraph 44 above). The present application therefore concerns enacted legislation. 108. As to whether the measure has been applied to the applicant to his detriment, the Court observes that, following his election in April 2009, the applicant was obliged to initiate a procedure to renounce his Romanian nationality in order to have his mandate as an MP confirmed by the Constitutional Court to allow him to take his seat. He has initiated this procedure (see paragraphs 60-61 above). Again, following his election in July 2009, the applicant was required to provide evidence of his initiation of the renunciation procedure to the Constitutional Court in order to have his mandate confirmed (see paragraph 66 above). The Court accordingly concludes that the applicant was directly affected by Law no. 273 as he was