2019 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 1(2) THE RIGHT TO A NATIONALITY UNDER THE ECHR For many years, the ECtHR consistently rejected cases concerning loss of citizenship, because of its incompatibility ratione materiae, in the absence of such a right being guaranteed by the ECHR or its protocols. 15 In recent years however, the ECtHR has recognised that, even though the right to nationality as such is not guaranteed by the ECHR or its protocols, the arbitrary denial of citizenship as well as its loss might, in certain circumstances, raise an issue under art 8 because of its impact on the private and family life of the individual. 16 The issue of citizenship deprivation is thus evaluated under art 8 ECHR. In determining whether citizenship deprivation is in breach of art 8, the ECtHR considers two issues: the arbitrariness of the decision, and its consequences for the applicant. 17 The arbitrariness test consists of several parts: the Court has regard to whether the deprivation measure has a clear legal basis in the national legal order, whether it was accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards, whether the person involved is allowed to challenge the decision before a court of law, and whether the authorities acted swiftly and diligently. 18 Currently, the Court has delivered one judgment and two decisions on the topic. 19 Two cases are pending. 20 The case of Ramadan provides a clear illustration of the Court’s take on the protection of private and family life in the context of citizenship deprivation. For this reason, Ramadan was chosen as a leading case for the purpose of this article, with referrals to the two other decisions where necessary. A The Case of Ramadan v Malta The applicant, originally an Egyptian national, acquired Maltese citizenship pursuant to his marriage to a Maltese citizen in 1993. 21 The marriage was annulled several years later. 22 Subsequently, he remarried a Russian national in Malta with whom he had two children. 23 As a result, both children were born Maltese citizens. 24 In 2007 the applicant’s citizenship was revoked after the Maltese authorities learned about the annulment of the first marriage. 25 The decision of revocation was based on the ground that his marriage was presumed to have been 15 See, eg, X v Austria (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application No 5212/71, 15 October 1972); Said Abdul Salam Mubarak v Denmark (European Court of Human Rights, Second Section, Application No 74411/16, 22 January 2019) (‘Said Abdul Salam Mubarak’). 16 Ramadan (n 11) 1118 [84]–[85]; Said Abdul Salam Mubarak (n 15) 21 [62]–[63]. 17 Ramadan (n 11) 1118 [85]; Said Abdul Salam Mubarak (n 15) 21 [62]. 18 Ramadan (n 11) 1118–19 [86] –[89]. 19 ibid; Said Abdul Salam Mubarak (n 15); K2 v United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, First Section, Application No 42387/13, 9 March 2017). 20 El Aroud v Belgium (European Court of Human Rights, Second Section, Application Nos 25491/18 and 27629/18, 5 November 2018); Ghoumid v France (European Court of Human Rights, Fifth Section, Application Nos 52273/16, 52285/16, 52290/16, 52294/16 and 52302/16, 23 May 2017). 21 Ramadan (n 11) 1101 [8]. 22 ibid 1101–12 [14]. 23 ibid 1102 [16], [19]. 24 ibid 1105–7 [32]–[35]. 25 ibid 1102 [18]. 266