Legal briefing: Statelessness and the right to respect for private and family life October 2024 journalist, the ECtHR added that domestic law must indicate the scope of discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference.171 The ECtHR also reached relevant conclusions in the case Johansen v. Denmark, ruling on the Danish authorities’ decision to deprive a dual national of his Danish nationality and to deport him following his conviction for receiving training with ISIS. The Court found no violation of Article 8 ECHR as it held that the deprivation decision was not arbitrary, and that the punishment was proportionate. In its assessment of the consequences of the revocation, the ECtHR took into account the fact that this decision did not render the applicant stateless.172 Related to these findings, the ECtHR has also found that Article 8 ECHR may be engaged when an individual is deprived of documents proving their nationality. In the cases of Usmanov173 and Smirnova,174 the ECtHR held that depriving a person of their passport or national identity documents interfered with that person’s social and private life. This interference may manifest itself in daily challenges where a person may frequently be required to prove their identity for administrative purposes, both for mundane tasks and for reasons deemed crucial to a person’s needs, such as having access to employment or accessing health care. These challenges and impediments to the enjoyment of private life may be further exacerbated through the use of fines for the failure to carry identification documents.175 At EU level, the CJEU has also developed case law on deprivation of nationality and the need for decisions to be proportionate and consistent with the right to respect for private and family life in accordance with Article 7 CFR. In the cases of Tjebbes176 and JY177, the CJEU held that, as part of the examination of proportionality, national authorities should ensure that a decision to deprive someone of their nationality or deny granting them nationality is consistent with Article 7 CFR, particularly where this leads to statelessness.178 In JY, the applicant renounced her Estonian nationality to acquire Austrian nationality as required due to Austria’s ‘single nationality’ approach. Austria retracted the assurance 171 ECtHR, Emin Huseynov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) (application no. 1/16), 13 July 2023, paragraph 58. ECtHR, Johansen v Denmark (application no 27801/19), 3 March 2022, paragraphs 52-60. For additional cases where the ECtHR has considered whether the revocation of nationality rendered the applicant stateless, see ECtHR, Alpeyeva and Dzhalagoniya v. Russia (applications nos. 7549/09 and 3330/11), 12 June 2018, paragraph 112; Mansour Said Abdul Salam Mubarak v. Denmark (application no. 74411/16), 22 January 2019, paragraph 69. For additional information on the Court case law and legal argument on this topic, see The AIRE Centre and ENS Third Party Intervention in the pending ECtHR case Pham v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 37478/20, 19 April 2021. 173 ECtHR, Usmanov v. Russia (application no. 43936/18), 22 December 2020, paragraph 60. 174 ECtHR, Smirnova v. Russia (applications nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99), 24 July 2003, paragraph 97. 175 ECtHR, Alpeyeva and Dzhalagoniya v. Russia (applications nos. 7549/09 and 3330/11), 12 June 2018, paragraphs 70, 114. 176 CJEU, Case C-221/17, Tjebbes and Others v. Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, 12 March 2019, paragraph 45. 177 CJEU, Case C-118/20, JY v. Wiener Landesregierung, 18 January 2022, paragraph 61. 178 For an additional case of the CJEU concerning a stateless person and Article 7 CFR, see also CJEU, Case C-720/17, Bilali, 23 May 2019. 172 29