Legal briefing: Statelessness and the right to respect for private and family life October 2024 restrictive measure, is an integral part of the assessment on whether the decision is arbitrary. An Article 8 assessment of the consequences of deprivation of nationality must take into account whether the applicant will be rendered stateless or at risk of statelessness.163 It requires an assessment of the applicant’s circumstances which should be conducted by the State before imposing measures which may affect the applicant’s rights.164 In Usmanov and subsequent judgments, the ECtHR has developed a two-pronged approach to evaluate whether the deprivation of nationality interferes with an individual's right to private and family life.165 Firstly, the Court examines the consequences of the impugned measure for the applicant. This entails assessing whether the practical effects of the deprivation amount to an interference with the applicant’s private life as protected in Article 8, such as loss of legal status, identity documents, or social identity. Secondly, the Court evaluates whether the measure was arbitrary. This involves scrutinising whether the measure was in accordance with domestic law, accompanied by necessary procedural safeguards, and implemented diligently and swiftly by the authorities. In Usmanov, there were three major consequences for the applicant: he was deprived of legal status in Russia; he was left without valid identity documents; and the annulment was a precondition for an entry ban and the decision to remove the applicant from Russia.166 These consequences were found to interfere with Article 8 ECHR. On arbitrariness, the ECtHR noted, inter alia, that the authorities were not required by domestic law to provide a reasoned decision on the grounds for the annulment decision. As such, it found that the legal framework failed to give adequate protection against arbitrary interference.167 In Hashemi and Others v. Azerbaijan, the ECtHR clarified that the two-pronged approach is the preferred methodology to determine interference with Article 8 as it relates to nationality,168 applying to both the deprivation and denial of nationality thereinafter. In determining arbitrariness, the Court also recalled that the notion of ‘in accordance with the law’ includes the quality of the law in question, requiring it to be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects.169 It also reiterated that judicial review is a necessary procedural safeguard against arbitrariness.170 In Emin Huseynov v. Azerbaijan (No. 2), a case concerning the termination of the nationality of an Azeri 163 ECtHR, Emin Huseynov v. Azerbaijan (No. 2) (application no. 1/16), 13 July 2023, paragraphs 60-66; ECtHR, Ghoumid and others v. France (applications no. 52273/16, 52285/16, 52290/16, 52294/16 and 52302/16), 25 June 2020, paragraph 50; ECtHR, K2 v. the United Kingdom (application no. 42387/13), 7 February 2017, paragraph 62. 164 See ECtHR, K2 v. the United Kingdom (application no. 42387/13), 7 February 2017, paragraph 49. 165 ECtHR, Usmanov v. Russia (application no. 43936/18), 22 December 2020, paragraph 60. 166 ECtHR, Usmanov v. Russia (application no. 43936/18), 22 December 2020, paragraph 60. For further engagement, see generally, ECtHR, Usmanov v. Russia (application no. 43936/18), 22 December 2020, Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Lemmens and Ravarani. 167 ECtHR, Usmanov v. Russia (application no. 43936/18), 22 December 2020, paragraph 70. 168 ECtHR, Hashemi and Others v. Azerbaijan (application nos. 1480/16, 3936/16, 15835/16, 28034/16, 34491/16, 51348/16 and 15904/17) 13 January 2022, paragraph 47. 169 ECtHR, Hashemi and Others v. Azerbaijan (application nos. 1480/16, 3936/16, 15835/16, 28034/16, 34491/16, 51348/16 and 15904/17) 13 January 2022, paragraph 51. 170 ECtHR, Hashemi and Others v. Azerbaijan (application nos. 1480/16, 3936/16, 15835/16, 28034/16, 34491/16, 51348/16 and 15904/17) 13 January 2022, paragraph 50. 28