Jules Lepoutre Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Lithuania, or the Netherlands only rely on criminal conviction – based on the broad category of ‘political offence’ (e.g., terrorism, offences against the independence and safety of the country, and offence against the constitutional or democratic order) – to issue a deprivation order. Finally, other Member States rely on administrative standards to revoke nationality, such as relations with the enemy in time of war, in Cyprus or Malta; fighting for a terror organisation abroad, in Germany; trying to change the constitutional order, in Estonia; acting against the interests of the state, in Greece, Romania, or Slovenia; violently attempting to overthrow the government, to change the political system, or to incite to activities aimed at ending the independence of the country, in Latvia; or the ‘not conducive to the public good’ standard in the United Kingdom. All of these 18 Member States follow a withdrawal procedure. Some Member States have set a time limitation for engaging the procedure, such as France, which implements a double time period: first, “the acts of which the person concerned is accused [must have] occurred before the acquisition of French nationality or within ten years as from the date of [the acquisition]”; second, the revocation “may be pronounced only within ten years as from the perpetration of those acts.” These two ten-year periods are extended to fifteen in case of terrorism. Eight Member States limit revocation to cases where statelessness is not at stake.81 Second, common criminal offences (L08) establishing the ‘lack of merit’ of the citizen are another ground for nationality deprivation in five Member States.82 This mode of loss is highly questionable, especially within the framework of the 1997 European Convention on Nationality, because no ‘vital interest’ of the state is at stake here. Indeed, in these five Member States, the revocation is based on a criminal conviction which may be for a minor offence. In Cyprus and Malta, the citizen must be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 12 months. In France and Lithuania, the revocation relies on a specific category of offence (in France, misconduct in public office, e.g., abuse of power, or breach of the duty of probity); in Lithuania, “severe” crime or international mass crimes) without mentioning any minimum term of imprisonment. Belgian legislation also refers to certain offences (e.g., human trafficking, international mass crimes) but with a minimum term of five years. This mode of loss only targets naturalised citizens and operates through a withdrawal procedure, sometimes with a time limitation – ten years after naturalisation in Belgium, seven in Malta, and five in Cyprus. In France, the same double period of ten years as in the case of disloyalty (see above) applies. Belgium, France and Malta forbid statelessness, whereas Cyprus and Lithuania do not. 3.2.4. Fraud and Similar Acts (1) International and European Legal Framework At the 16th plenary meeting of the United Nations Conference on the Elimination or Reduction of Future Statelessness, in 1961, the Italian representative explained to his colleagues that any international provision regarding loss of nationality in case of fraud was absolutely “unnecessary” because “if the Government of a State discovered that a person had obtained the nationality of that State by fraud it would, as a matter of course, annul the grant of nationality.”83 Nationality revocation or cancellation can, indeed, be considered as a matter of general administrative nature and public order – the nullification of a status obtained in bad faith – more than a proper nationality regulation. Yet, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness is not silent on this mode of loss. Pursuant to article 2(b), “where the nationality has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud,” the deprivation can lead to 81 Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Germany, Latvia, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. For the latter, section 40(4A) of the 1981 British Nationality Act establishes exceptions, see above 3.1.2. 82 Belgium, Cyprus, France, Lithuania and Malta. 83 UN General Assembly, Conference on the Elimination or Reduction of Future Statelessness, 16th plen. mtg., UN Doc. A/CONF.9/SR.16 (16 August 1961). Retrieved from here. 20 Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Working Papers