59. Deprivation would not be justified if the person was not aware and could not have been
aware that the information provided during naturalization was untrue. Several participants
emphasized that due consideration must be given to the motivation of the individual such
as why a person committed the act(s) in question. One example provided related to
provision of incorrect information during a naturalization procedure because the applicant
feared that use of their full and correct identity would endanger family members in
another country. Another area of concern is the often poor quality of “feeder” or
supporting documents from civil registration systems and other administrative registries
in many countries which serve as proof for issuance of identity documents and passports.
These documents often contain minor errors or discrepancies relating to the identity of
individuals. These realities need to be taken into account in assessing cases of alleged
misrepresentation or fraud.
60. Participants indicated that in light of Article 15 of the UDHR and, in the European
context, Recommendation 99(18) of the Council of Europe and the European Court of
Justice´s ruling in the case Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern, deprivation procedures must
apply the principle of proportionality.
Individual decisions in deprivation cases
61. The decision whether or not to deprive persons of their nationality needs to be made
individually for each person involved. This is clear from the terms used in Article 8 (“a
person”, “the person”) and also from the requirement in paragraph 4 of the Article that
each individual is to be afforded a fair hearing. Hence, if two spouses acquired nationality
on the basis of one naturalization decree, separate deprivation decisions have to be made
for each.
Children
62. Where authorities are considering the deprivation of nationality of children due to
misrepresentation or fraud, special attention needs to be given to the objective of
preventing statelessness among children as set out in Articles 1-4 of the 1961 Convention
and Articles 7 and 8 of the CRC, read in light of the principle of the best interests of the
child of CRC Article 3. It is never in the best interests of the child to be rendered
stateless.
The type of deprivation construction in domestic law does not affect a State’s obligations
under Article 8(2)(b)
63. If a State uses an annulment procedure with retroactive (ex tunc) effect instead of a
procedure with ex nunc effect in cases where it is found that the nationality was obtained
through fraud or misrepresentation, such annulment may never have automatic
consequences for the individual’s spouse or children. In cases of annulment, separate
decisions must be made for all individuals involved.
64. In cases of alleged misrepresentation or fraud, a declaration that the acquisition of
nationality was void ab initio (i.e. that the person never possessed the nationality) would
be classified as arbitrary deprivation if the procedure fails to allow for a proportionality
test. Furthermore, if the void ab initio construction has automatic consequences for the
nationality of children and further descendants, whose nationality depends exclusively on
13