Legal briefing: Statelessness and the right to respect for private and family life October 2024 was made stateless or not, based on the considerable negative consequences for the individual’s enjoyment of various rights in their daily life.156 These cases build upon the ECtHR’s holdings in the earlier Karassev v. Finland case, which, although rendered inadmissible, stated that an arbitrary denial of nationality may raise an issue under Article 8 ECHR.157 In Karassev, the applicant claimed that Finland violated Articles 8 and 14 ECHR when Finnish authorities allegedly arbitrarily denied him Finnish nationality, thereby delaying the regularisation of his stay. The applicant was born in Finland to parents born in the former Soviet Union. Finnish authorities refused to recognise the applicant as a Finnish national, which recognition was required if the applicant had not acquired another nationality. Finnish authorities believed that the applicant had acquired his parent’s Russian nationality at birth, despite Russian authorities issuing statements on the contrary.158 The Court found the application manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible, as it held that the Finnish authorities’ decision was not arbitrary. The Court held that the Russian authorities’ statements on the applicant’s nationality status, while ambiguous, could imply that he had acquired Russian nationality at the time of his birth. Unfortunately, this case failed to consider key international guidance on the interpretation of the definition of a stateless person, including the need to consider how the authorities treat the individual in practice. Deprivation of nationality Having accepted that the acquisition or denial of nationality may raise an issue under Article 8 ECHR, in Ramadan v. Malta the Court then accepted that the same principles must apply to the deprivation of a nationality already acquired.159 An analysis of whether Article 8 has been breached requires consideration of the consequences of deprivation for the applicant. In Ghoumid and Others v. France160 and K2 v. the United Kingdom,161 the Court once again stated that although the right to nationality is not as such guaranteed by the ECHR, arbitrary deprivation of nationality may engage Article 8 ECHR because of its impact on the private life of the person concerned. Decisions to deprive a person of their nationality must comply with substantive and procedural standards. A deprivation decision would be arbitrary if it is not prescribed by law, is not the least intrusive means to achieving a legitimate aim and proportionate to the aim pursued, or if adequate procedural safeguards are not in place.162 Compliance with the principle of proportionality, including ensuring that deprivation is the least 156 ECtHR, Hashemi and Others v. Azerbaijan (application nos. 1480/16 and 6 others) 13 January 2022, paragraph 48. See also ECtHR, Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan (application no. 32538/10), 30 January 2020, paragraph 46. 157 ECtHR, Karassev v. Finland (application no. 31414/96), 12 January 1999, p. 10. 158 ECtHR, Karassev v. Finland (application no. 31414/96), 12 January 1999, pp. 2-7. 159 ECtHR, Ramadan v. Malta (application no. 76136/12), 21 June 2016, paragraph 85. 160 ECtHR, Ghoumid and Others v. France (applications no. 52273/16, 52285/16, 52290/16, 52294/16 and 52302/16), 25 June 2020. 161 ECtHR, K2 v. the United Kingdom (application no. 42387/13), 7 February 2017, paragraph 49. 162 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5: Loss and Deprivation of Nationality under Articles 5-9 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, May 2020, HCR/GS/20/05, paragraphs 62, 91-95; and UN Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General, 19 December 2013, A/HRC/25/28, §4. See also Brandvoll, J. (2014), ‘Deprivation of nationality: Limitations on rendering persons stateless under international law’, in Alice Edwards and Laura van Waas (eds), Nationality and Statelessness under International Law (Cambridge University Press 2014), pp. 194–216. 27