Citizenship Deprivation under the European Convention-System THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION Although the ECtHR does not consider citizenship deprivation as an explicit discrimination issue, nationality legislation is a field of law where many ‘differences’ are installed. For example, the CBN installs a difference between children who are born Belgian as a consequence of the Belgian nationality of their parents versus children who became Belgian as a consequence of acquiring Belgian nationality from their parents later in life. 102 Or, a difference between children who acquired the Belgian nationality on the basis of CBN art 11 bis,103 versus those who acquired it based on CBN art 12. 104 Other differences, such as a difference between single and dual nationals are installed as well, 105 although this difference can be justified by the idea that single nationals would become stateless when subjected to deprivation. Alternatively, consider the difference between two groups of dual nationals: one unable to give up their second nationality, while the other is able to do so. The first group is capable of protecting themselves from the realities of citizenship deprivation. 106 One can wonder whether states may, under the general principle of the prohibition of discrimination, distinguish between different types of nationals. Evidently, installing such differences does not necessarily imply that this constitutes discrimination in the legal sense. The following paragraphs will examine how the ECtHR evaluates such a difference from the point of view of the prohibition of discrimination. This article will not address all the differences installed by Belgian nationality legislation. It will instead focus on a very specific one: the one installed between children born Belgian as a consequence of the Belgian nationality of their parents versus children who became Belgian as a consequence of acquiring Belgian nationality from their parents later in life. 107 This provision installs a difference in treatment between children, not on the basis of their own character or behaviour, but on the basis of the status of their parents. Based on the parent’s status, an assumption is then made about the child’s connectedness with the national community, to which major consequences are tied. Not only is such a provision questionable from the idea that a person is but the master of their own faith, but from a legal point of view, one can wonder whether this difference is maintainable from the perspective of the prohibition of discrimination? What protection is offered by the ECHR system for people subjected to such an installed difference? And is such a difference maintainable from the perspective of the prohibition of discrimination? A Comparability of the Different Categories Equal protection is, of course, only granted to people who are in equal positions. Therefore, a necessary first question to examine is whether the different categories of nationals are comparable in situation. As mentioned, denationalisation in its 102 103 104 105 106 107 CBN (n 5) art 8(1) 1°, 12, 23–23/2(1). ibid art 11 bis. ibid art 12. See CBN (n 5) art 23(1), 23/1(2), 23/2(2). See Wautelet (n 61). CBN (n 5) art 8(1) 1°, 12, 23–23/2(1). 277