CITIZENSHIP DEPRIVATION UNDER THE EUROPEAN
CONVENTION-SYSTEM: A CASE STUDY OF BELGIUM
LOUISE REYNTJENS *
In response to Islamic-inspired terrorism and the growing trend of foreign fighters, European
governments are increasingly relying on citizenship deprivation as a security tool. This paper will
focus on the question of how the fundamental rights of individuals deprived of their citizenship are
affected and which protection is offered for them by the European Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’). In many countries, these new and
broader deprivation powers were left unaccompanied by stronger (procedural) safeguards that
protect the human rights they might affect. Unlike the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ECHR does not provide for an explicit
right to citizenship. The question therefore rises what protection, if any, is offered by the ECHR
system against citizenship deprivation and for the right to citizenship. Through a case study of the
Belgian measure of citizenship deprivation, the (implicit) protection provided by the Conventionsystem is demonstrated.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................... 263
The Right to a Nationality under the ECHR ......................................................... 266
A The Case of Ramadan v Malta ................................................................. 266
B Article 8 ECHR: A (Mere) Protection against Expulsion ......................... 269
Belgium: A Case Study......................................................................................... 270
A Three Grounds for Citizenship Deprivation ............................................. 270
B Ratione personae ...................................................................................... 272
The ECtHR’s Interpretation of the Right to Private and Family Life in
Citizenship Deprivation Cases: Creating Incoherence at the National Level ....... 273
The Prohibition of Discrimination ........................................................................ 277
A Comparability of the Different Categories ............................................... 277
B Objective Justification .............................................................................. 278
C Legitimate Aim and Proportionality ......................................................... 280
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 281
INTRODUCTION
European governments are increasingly relying on citizenship deprivation as a
security tool in response to Islamic-inspired terrorism and the growing trend of
foreign fighters. 1 This development fits within a broader securitisation of
immigration, where the terrorist threat is perceived as emanating from abroad. 2 As
*
1
2
Louise Reyntjens is a doctoral student and teaching assistant at the Institute of Human Rights,
Public Law, KU Leuven. She obtained a law degree at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in
2017 and studied in 2016 as an exchange student at Paris René Descartes University. Since
October 2017 she has been preparing a PhD on the use of citizenship deprivation under the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: see n 7.
Lucia Zedner, ‘Citizenship Deprivation, Security and Human Rights’ (2016) 18(2) European
Journal of Migration and Law 222; Matthew Gibney, ‘Denationalization’ in Ayelet Shachar
et al (eds), The Oxford Handbook on Citizenship (Oxford University Press 2017).
Daniel Moeckli, ‘The Selective “War on Terror”: Executive Detention of Foreign Nationals
and the Principle of Non-Discrimination’ (2006) 31(2) Brooklyn Journal of International Law
495.