Meijers Committee standing committee of experts on international immigration, refugee and criminal law Indirect differential treatment on the ground of racial or ethnic origin In the abovementioned Biao judgment, the ECtHR Grand Chamber established that differences in treatment between born and naturalised Danish citizens amounted to indirect differential treatment on the grounds of ethnic origin, as naturalised citizens are generally ‘of foreign ethnic origin’. This observation equally applies to the situation in other states, naturalisation of former (native) nationals occurs in a minority of cases only. Therefore, deprivation regimes that apply only to naturalised citizens must be considered to differentiate on the grounds of ethnic origin. In states where all citizens, including those by birth, may be deprived of their nationality in relation to terrorist activities, the extent to which citizens of migrant origin are targeted is less clear from the text of the law. However, the table in paragraph 3 showed that, with the exception of Italy and the UK, these states only allow citizenship deprivation if the person concerned would not become stateless. In practice this means that deprivation is only possible if the person concerned has dual or multiple nationality. Like the fact of being naturalised, the possession of another nationality is an indicator of immigrant origin. As explained in paragraph 2, the occurrence of dual nationality generally results from migration in combination with state policies aimed at gender equality or integration and the coexistence of ius soli and ius sanguinis regimes for the acquisition of citizenship. From the ECtHR judgment in the case of Biao it can be derived that differential treatment of dual nationals, like differential treatment of naturalised citizens, results in a presumption of indirect ethnic discrimination because it predominantly affects persons of foreign ethnic origin. In addition, many dual nationals are not only of immigrant origin but also belong to groups that are commonly perceived, in the European countries discussed in this policy brief, as racial or ethnic ‘others’ and suffer discrimination on that ground.108 In The Netherlands, for example, around three-quarters of all dual nationals belong to the group of so-called ‘non-western migrants’.109 In Dutch political and public discourse and in official documents, these ‘nonwestern’ migrants are frequently portrayed as underprivileged and culturally different and as posing risks to the economic welfare and national identity of the Netherlands. The same is true for persons of Turkish or Moroccan origin, who together constitute half of the group of dual nationals. Finally, Muslims in the Netherlands face relatively high levels of discrimination on account of their ethno-religious background.110 Both the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Special Rapporteur on racism have warned against stigmatisation of ethnic and religious minorities, and especially Muslim communities, as a result of Dutch counter-terrorism policies.111 Despite assurances by the Dutch government that the relevant legislation ‘in no way targets specific population groups,’112 to date all dual 108 See also Gärditz & Wallrabenstein 2019. CBS 2014. 110 E.g. EU Fundamental Rights Agency, Second European Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS). Muslims – Selected Findings, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2017. 111 Letter of the CoE Commissioner for Human Rights of 2 November 2016, CommDH(2016)40 and Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on racism on her Visit to the Netherlands, 2 July 2020, A/HRC/44/57/Add2. 112 Letter of the Dutch authorities to the CoE Commissioner for Human Rights, CommDH/GovRep(2016)25. 109 22