Citizenship Deprivation under the European Convention-System In other words, the ECtHR ruled that no distinction ought to be tolerated between child and parent on the basis of the latter’s nationality acquisition status, unless objectively justified. Such was not the case here. 119 The same reasoning can be applied to circumstances such as a law that installs a difference between those born with a nationality and those who acquire nationality, an example of which is the CBN. As highlighted above, the CBN promotes a difference between those who are born with Belgian nationality at birth as a result of having Belgian parents, and those who acquire it later as a result of a parent obtaining Belgain nationality. 120 The first can never be deprived of their nationality under Belgian law. 121 The second category can be deprived of their nationality, provided they possess a second nationality, so as not to render them stateless. 122 The difference installed is based on the mode of acquisition of their nationality, which in turn is based on the status of their parents: if the parent possesses the Belgian nationality at the time of the child’s birth in the sense of CBN art 8, the latter will be protected against the possibility of deprivation. If the parent was a foreigner (resident on the Belgian territory) at the time of the child’s birth, the latter will be subjected to the deprivation possibility (if they acquired Belgian nationality in the first place according to CBN art 12). The Belgian Constitutional Court justifies this legislative position by contending that the first group has stronger community ties with their country, considering their descent from Belgian parents. 123 This group is protected from denationalisation by the supposed importance of these ‘ties’; a criterion used to justify the legislative position regardless of a person’s actual ties to Belgium. In contrast, being born in another country suffices in this context to quash this criterion, regardless of any acquisition of Belgian citizenship or any ‘genuine’ ties. The ECtHR on the other hand, does not attach much weight to the method of acquisition, but rather to the actual ties with the community one possesses. In Biao v Denmark, the ECtHR rephrased its holding in Abdulaziz, stating that: [T]here are in general persuasive social reasons for giving special treatment to those who have strong ties with a country, whether stemming from birth within it or from being a national or long-term resident. 124 In light of this case law, the difference installed between nationals who are born into a nationality because of their parents being nationals at time of birth and those who acquired said nationality as a consequence of its acquirement by one of their parents cannot be maintained. Justifying protection from denationalisation for the first category on the basis of having stronger community ties seems invalid. Where 119 ibid 711 [45]. According to the Court the applicant was in an analogous situation to other children with a father of Maltese nationality and a mother of foreign nationality. The only distinguishing factor, which rendered him ineligible to acquire citizenship, was the fact that he had been born out of wedlock. 120 CBN (n 5) art 8(1) provides that a child is Belgian by birth if they are born from Belgian 121 122 123 124 parents. Article 12 provides that a child which has not yet reached the age of eighteen, will acquire Belgian nationality if one of its parents voluntarily acquires or reacquires the Belgian nationality, provided the child has its principle residence in Belgium. CBN (n 5) arts 23–23/2. ibid. Preliminary Question No 16/2018 (n 75) [B.6]–[B.7]. Biao (n 99) 60 [OH-29]; Abdulaziz (n 99) 505–6 [88]. 279