Citizenship Deprivation under the European Convention-System 12, a person can acquire Belgian nationality when one of their parents voluntarily (re)acquires Belgian nationality, before they reach the age of 18. 82 According to the Belgian Constitutional Court, these people have acquired the Belgian nationality during their childhood as a result of the mere fact of the (re)acquisition of the Belgian nationality by a parent, without there being any other condition of connection with the national community. 83 For this reason, or better yet, lack thereof, they can be deprived of their nationality. The fact that only a limited category of Belgian citizens is subjected to deprivation powers raises questions regarding the right to private and family life, as well as the prohibition of discrimination. Those subjected to citizenship deprivation are namely assumed to lack strong community ties, which begs the question: what if this assumption is wrong? What if an individual falling under the subjected category does instead have strong roots in the Belgian community? Would this withstand the art 8 test? Furthermore, one can wonder whether states may, under the general principle of the prohibition of discrimination, distinguish between different types of nationals? THE ECTHR’S INTERPRETATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE IN CITIZENSHIP DEPRIVATION CASES: CREATING INCOHERENCE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL The second protection mechanism in the CBN allows for the deprivation of Belgian nationality where, according to pre-set legislative categories, a person lacks strong links with national communities. It is inherently problematic. As mentioned above, Belgians who have acquired the Belgian nationality on the basis of CBN art 12 (excluding the art 11 bis category, which is also a form of acquirement) 84 are assumed to lack such strong links because they acquired the Belgian nationality as a result of the acquirement of said nationality by a parent, without having to show any other connection with the national community. 85 The Belgian Constitutional Court was asked to rule on the question of whether this arrangement was discriminatory, because ‘native-born’ Belgians and Belgians falling under CBN art 11 bis are excluded from the scope of citizenship deprivation. 86 It found that it was not. 87 The difference in treatment between both categories of Belgians was not discriminatory according to the Court, because it was based on a legitimate criterion: the connection ‘native-born’ Belgians and Belgians falling under CBN art 11 bis have with their home country. 88 A strong counter-argument can, however, be made against this: the pre-set categories associated with ‘community ties’ assume that, by virtue of being born into a certain nationality, a determination can be made upon the community ties of an individual. In doing so, they fail to consider holistically the origin of these ties. Imagine a person born in Belgium from Belgian parents, but who moves to another country at a young age. They and their parents build an entire life there 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 ibid art 12. Preliminary Question No 16/2018 (n 75) [B.7]. CBN (n 5) art 12, 11 bis. Preliminary Question No 16/2018 (n 75) [B.7], discussing CBN (n 5) art 12. Preliminary Question No 16/2018 (n 75) [B.7]. ibid [B.18.2]. ibid [B.6], [B.8]. 273