Article 14(6) DNA: deprivation of Dutch nationality which results in statelessness 128. Article 14 DNA limits the conditions under which deprivation of nationality which results in statelessness can take place and as such contributes to the prevention of statelessness. It provides: “1. Our Minister may revoke the acquisition or grant of Netherlands nationality if it is based on a false declaration made by the person concerned or fraud and/or on concealment of any fact relevant to the acquisition or grant. ... 6. Without prejudice to the case referred to in the first subsection, Netherlands nationality may not be lost if this would lead to statelessness.”179 129. Article 8 of the 1961 Convention reads: “(1) A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of his nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless. “(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, a person may be deprived of the nationality of a Contracting State: … (b) Where the nationality has been obtained by misrepresentation of fraud.” 130. Although Article 14(6) DNA is therefore compatible with Article 8 of the 1961 Convention, De Groot nonetheless argues that the introduction of this provision in 2003 violated the spirit of the 1961 Convention.180 Article 14(6) is also compatible with the 1997 ECN, since the latter provides in its Article 7 for an exception to the general rule that a State Party may not provide in its internal law for the loss of its nationality ex lege except, inter alia, in case of “acquisition of the nationality … by means of fraudulent conduct, false information or concealment of any relevant fact attributable to the applicant”. 131. The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Rottmann case181 is relevant in this context. It ruled that a Member State may withdraw its nationality, when granted by way of naturalization, from a citizen of the EU, when that person has obtained it by deception, even if as a consequence of that withdrawal the person concerned loses their EU citizenship because they no longer possess the nationality of a Member State. Nevertheless, the judgment of the CJEU also determined that the withdrawal must observe the principle of proportionality. In particular, it has to be ascertained whether the withdrawal of naturalization and, therefore, the loss of the rights enjoyed by every EU citizen are justified and proportionate in relation to the gravity of the offence committed by that person, to the lapse of time between the naturalization decision and the withdrawal decision, and to whether it is possible for that person to recover their original nationality. It held that it is for the national court to determine whether, before a decision withdrawing naturalization on the basis of deception takes effect, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, observance of the principle of proportionality requires the person concerned to be afforded a reasonable period of time in order to try to recover the nationality of his or her Member State of origin. 52 179  ee critically on the Minister’s power to withdraw Dutch nationality under Article 14(1) if this results S in statelessness, G.-R. de Groot, Handboek Nieuw Nationaliteitsrecht (Deventer: Kluwer, 2003), 82. Article 14(1) jo. (6) arguably violates Article 8(4) of the 1961 Convention which reads: ‘A Contracting State shall not exercise a power of deprivation … except in accordance with law, which shall provide for the person concerned the right to a fair hearing by a court or other independent body’. 180 Ibid., 353–354. 181 Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern, 2 March 2010, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4be130552.html. Mapping statelessness