Citizenship Deprivation under the European Convention-System human rights they might affect. 8 Unlike the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (‘UDHR’) 9 or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’), 10 the ECHR does not provide for an explicit right to citizenship. The question therefore arises whether the ECHR system provides for sufficient protection against citizenship deprivation and the right to citizenship. To answer this question, this article will first outline the European Court of Human Rights’ (‘ECtHR’) take on citizenship deprivation. As will be demonstrated by the case of Ramadan v Malta (‘Ramadan’), 11 the Court evaluates citizenship deprivation as an art 8 issue. However, the Court’s interpretation of private and family life in the context of citizenship deprivation seems narrow, offering little protection for the individual in question, apart from protection against expulsion. Such an interpretation seems problematic, as will be demonstrated through a case study of the Belgian measure of citizenship deprivation. Lastly, this contribution will evaluate the Belgian measure from the perspective of the prohibition of discrimination. Although not evaluated so explicitly as a discrimination issue by the ECtHR, many countries have nationality legislation in place that differentiates between different groups of nationals, 12 thereby opening the door for an examination under art 14 ECHR, 13 most often in combination with art 8 ECHR.14 Unlike the ECHR system’s protection in the context of private and family life, the prohibition of discrimination seems to offer more redress. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 For example, in Belgium, the time-limitation that guarded the proportionality between denationalisation and the individual’s ties to Belgium was abolished with a 2015 legislative amendment. Before the 2015 amendment, denationalisation based on an explicit terrorism conviction was only possible ‘to the extent that [they have] committed the charges against [them] within ten years from the day on which [they] acquired Belgian nationality’: CBN (n 5) art 23/1. This limitation evidently limited the scope of denationalisation, but it also guarded the protection for the individual’s private and family life. Its abolishment entailed a considerable broadening of denationalisation’s scope, with a potential infringement on the individual’s fundamental rights as a consequence. In a similar manner, the Immigration Act 2014 (UK) also entailed an extension of citizenship deprivation powers, with a (potentially significant) infringement of the individual’s fundamental rights such as the right to private and family life. Since the 2014 amendment, deprivation of citizenship is permitted even if this results in statelessness. This entailed a significant departure from the UK’s historic commitment to prevent and reduce statelessness. See Zedner (n 1) 233. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217A (III), UN GAOR, UN Doc A/810 (10 December 1948) (‘UDHR’). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 19 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) (‘ICCPR’). Ramadan v Malta (2017) 65 EHRR 32 (‘Ramadan’). For example, in the United Kingdom, only naturalized citizens are subjected to citizenship deprivation powers. See Immigration Act 2014 (UK) s 66. Or, in Belgium, only citizens who acquired the Belgian nationality (as the opposite of being born with it) are subjected to denationalisation powers (with the exception of CBN (n 5) art 11 bis). See at arts 21–21/2. See also at arts 8, 9, 11, 11 bis. ECHR (n 7) art 14. ibid art 8. 265