Legal briefing: Statelessness and the right to respect for private and family life October 2024 that the applicant would be granted Austrian nationality on the grounds that she had committed road traffic offences, thereby rendering the applicant stateless. The CJEU confirmed that this situation falls within the scope of EU law, and held that, as part of the examination of proportionality, national authorities should ensure that the decision to revoke an assurance is consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights, in particular the right to respect for family life according to Article 7 CFR, where appropriate read in conjunction with the obligation to take into consideration the best interests of the child. The Court found that the decision was not proportionate to the gravity of the offences, “in the light of [its] significant consequences for [the applicant’s] situation, as regards, in particular, the normal development of her family and professional life”. The applicant’s permanent loss of their EU citizenship was not justified.179 In Tjebbes, Dutch authorities refused to examine the applications of Dutch nationals, with dual nationality of a non-EU country, for renewal of their Dutch passports. The decision was based on the fact that they had lost their Dutch nationality because they possessed a foreign nationality and had their principal residence for an uninterrupted period of 10 years outside the Netherlands and the EU. As in JY, the CJEU held that the loss of nationality must respect the principle of proportionality, which includes consistency with Article 7 CFR, and found that national authorities must perform an individual assessment of the consequences of that loss for the applicants, including difficulties in traveling to the EU to retain genuine and regular links with family members and pursuing their professional activity.180 Summary and analysis The CJEU has developed promising case law that confirms that certain nationality issues fall within the scope of EU law and has required the proportionality assessment of decisions of deprivation of nationality to take into account the impact of deprivation on private and family life. The CJEU could further explicitly require consideration of the consequences of statelessness as part of the Member States’ deprivation decision. This would also ensure that, in accordance with Article 53 CFR, Member States also fulfil their obligations under international human rights law, in particular the 1961 Convention, which strictly limits the possibility of deprivation that would result in statelessness.181 ECtHR case law has interpreted the issue of nationality as falling under the scope of Article 8 ECHR, acknowledging its impact on an individual’s private life. With regard to deprivation of nationality, it has established the obligation for States to assess the consequences of this decision for the individual and, in so doing, to take into account whether the applicant would be rendered stateless or at risk of statelessness. The Court has therefore recognised that deprivation has particularly severe consequences where this renders the individual stateless. There is potential to further develop this case law to 179 CJEU, JY v. Wiener Landesregierung, Case C-118/20, 18 January 2022, paragraphs 61, 73. CJEU, Case C-221/17, Tjebbes and Others v. Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, 12 March 2019, paragraphs 45-46. 181 1961 Convention, Article 8(1). The provision in domestic law to allow for the deprivation of an individual’s nationality if that person would thereby become stateless is also prohibited by Article 7(3) of the European Convention on Nationality. This applies to all States that have ratified this Convention. 180 30