RAMADAN v. MALTA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION 33 The principles established by Article 4 of the European Convention on Nationality, such as that everyone has the right to a citizenship, that statelessness shall be avoided, and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her citizenship, are principles of such importance for ensuring social interaction of human beings in a democratic society that they must be seen as well-established principles of international law. Beyond the clear and uncontested evidence of a continuing trend in general international law29, these principles have gained the status of customary international law30. Under Articles 4 and 7 (1) and (3) of the 1997 European Convention on Nationality, providing that statelessness is to be avoided, a given State has an obligation to facilitate the acquisition of its nationality for stateless persons and to refrain from deciding on the loss of its nationality if the person would thereby become stateless, save for cases of acquisition of nationality by means of fraudulent conduct, false information or concealment of any relevant fact attributable to that person 31. This principle should be read in the light of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation no. (99) 18 on the avoidance of statelessness, which recommends that a State should not necessarily deprive of its nationality persons who have acquired its nationality by means of fraudulent conduct, false information or concealment of any relevant fact, since this decision should take in account the gravity of the facts, as well as other relevant circumstances, such as the genuine and effective link of these persons with the State concerned32. In order to avoid and reduce cases of statelessness, particularly of children, the Committee of Ministers adopted a Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)13 on the nationality of children. Member States were recommended to take into account in their legislation regarding nationality the comprehensive principles contained in the appendix to the Recommendation. and not to be expelled from the territory of the State of which they are nationals. In addition, Article 4 of the same protocol prohibits the collective expulsion of foreigners.” 29. The “clear and uncontested evidence of a continuing international trend” was the relevant test in Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 85, ECHR 2002-VI. In paragraph 29 of the explanatory report to the European Convention on Nationality, it is stated that “With the development of human rights law since the Second World War, there exists an increasing recognition that State discretion in this field must furthermore take into account the fundamental rights of individuals”. 30. See Article 33 of the explanatory report to the European Convention on Nationality. 31. ETS no. 166. The Convention has been ratified by 20 States. Malta signed it, but has not ratified it yet. 32. It is important to recall the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment in the case of Rottman v. Freistaat Bayern, 2 March 2010, §§ 55, 56 and 59, which concluded that “it is not contrary to European Union law, in particular to Article 17 EC, for a Member State to withdraw from a citizen of the Union the nationality of that State acquired by naturalisation when that nationality has been obtained by deception, on condition that the decision to withdraw observes the principle of proportionality.”