RAMADAN v. MALTA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION 25 DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PINTO DE ALBUQUERQUE 1. I disagree with the findings of the Chamber on the merits. For me, there has been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), in view of the unjustified, draconian measure taken by the national authorities against the applicant. The features of the present case are unique in the history of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court). The case concerns the revocation of the applicant’s citizenship, which he had obtained on 19 April 1994 as a result of his marriage to a Maltese citizen. Such citizenship was revoked more than thirteen years later, on the basis that a domestic court had annulled the said marriage because it considered that the applicant’s only reason to marry had been to remain in Malta and obtain Maltese citizenship. In addition to my serious doubts regarding the correctness of the annulment judgment, I entertain principled reservations to the majority’s assessment of the fairness of the revocation procedure and the proportionality of the revocation order, in view of the applicant’s ensuing statelessness, the risk of his imminent expulsion from Malta and its impact on his family life 1. Although this case had all the ingredients for the Court to revisit its still insufficient case-law on the right to citizenship, unfortunately the Chamber did not seize the opportunity. Hopefully the Grand Chamber will do this at the request of the applicant and finally affirm the existence of an autonomous Convention right to citizenship. 1. For the sake of terminological accuracy, the concepts of citizenship and nationality are equated in this opinion, as has been the Court’s and the Council of Europe’s practice. As stated in a footnote to the explanatory report to the European Convention on Nationality: “Most countries of central and eastern Europe use the term ‘citizenship’ which has the same meaning as the term ‘nationality’ used in the European Convention on Nationality and by most western European States.” In addition, I will consider a stateless person someone who is “not recognized as a national by any state under the operation of its law”, as provided by Article 1 of the 1954 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. This definition, which concerns de jure stateless persons, is part of customary international law. Currently, there is no common definition of a de facto stateless person. In the 2010 Expert Meeting of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on the Concept of Stateless Persons, de facto stateless persons were defined as “persons outside the country of their nationality who are unable or, for valid reasons, are unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country”. See UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 1: “The definition of ‘Stateless Person’ in Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons”, HCR/GS/12/01, 20 February 2012, and “UNHCR and De Facto Statelessness”, by Hugh Massey, LPPR/2010/01, April 2010.