Citizenship Deprivation under the European Convention-System his language skills’, 51 the Court found that depriving the applicant of his Danish nationality would not be in breach of art 8 ECHR. 52 B Article 8 ECHR: A (Mere) Protection against Expulsion Concerning the ECtHR’s evaluation of the consequences of citizenship deprivation, it seems that the Court considers art 8 to be mainly a protection against expulsion. Having citizenship status will protect an individual against expulsion, because countries are prohibited to expel their own nationals, as enshrined in art 3, Protocol No 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (‘Protocol 4’). 53 When expulsion is off the table, as was the case in Ramadan, the Court does not seem to have an issue with citizenship deprivation (even if this leads to statelessness). In the event that expulsion is at stake, the impact on the person is weighed against the original deprivation decision. Such an interpretation of the right to private and family life in the context of citizenship deprivation can be called into question, as was already pointed out by Judge Pinto De Albuquerque in his dissenting opinion in Ramadan. 54 It seems that the ECtHR fails to recognise the importance of having a nationality for an individual’s (private) life by reducing the protection offered by art 8 to a mere protection against expulsion when it entails much more than that. For example, a fundamental importance of having a nationality is that it matters for the effective enjoyment of human rights. Human rights were originally constructed as claims belonging to the individual against the state. 55 51 52 53 54 55 ibid 20 [70]. ibid. Protocol No 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 16 September 1963, ETS No 46 (entered into force 2 May 968) (‘Protocol 4’). That is, of course, if states have signed and ratified Protocol 4. Belgium has done both, it entered into force on the 21st of September 1970. See Council of Europe, ‘Chart of Signatures and Ratifications of Treaty 046’, Council of Europe Portal (Web Page) <https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list//conventions/treaty/046/signatures?p_auth=TzQXFXbs>. In the absence of ECHR protection, the right to freedom of movement, as enshrined on the universal level by the ICCPR (n 10) art 12 and the UDHR (n 9) art 13, (although not legally binding) can provide protection against expulsion. Unlike the ECHR, no international human rights instrument explicitly mentions a similar prohibition. A number of human rights instruments prohibit mass expulsion of aliens, as well as nationals, but this scenario must be differentiated from an individual case of expulsion. However, the protection needed might be found in the term ‘freedom of movement’ in international law. Such freedom of movement includes multiple rights, such as the freedom to move in one’s own country, as well as from one country to another, such as the right move freely on the territory of the home country; the right to choose a place of residence; the right to leave a country and the right to re-enter the home country. The right not to be expelled from the home country can be seen as the logical counterpart to the rights comprised in the term ‘freedom of movement’; namely the right not to be moved, such as expulsion or forceful displacement. See also Eckart Klein, ‘Movement, Freedom of, International Protection’ in R Wolfrum (ed), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press 2012). Ramadan (n 11) 1121–31 (OH-1)–(10-18). Lucy Fiske, Human Rights, Refugee Protest and Immigration Detention (Palgrave Mcmillan 2016) 25. 269