Citizenship Loss and Deprivation in the European Union (27 + 1) statelessness, without either protection or limitation. This is the only ground where statelessness is unconditionally authorised. Even the 1997 European Convention on Nationality, in articles 7(1)(b) and 7(3), makes “acquisition of the nationality of the State Party by means of fraudulent conduct, false information or concealment of any relevant fact attributable to the applicant” the only exception where statelessness is authorised. In the famous Rottmann case, ruled in 2010 by the grand chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the judges considered that “it is legitimate for a Member State to wish to protect the special relationship of solidarity and good faith between it and its nationals and also the reciprocity of rights and duties, which form the bedrock of the bond of nationality.”84 Thus, the Court considered that nationality revocation in case of fraud was absolutely legitimate. However, when nationality deprivation leads to the loss of European citizenship, the withdrawal decision must “[observe] the principle of proportionality,” which means “[to take] into account the consequences that the decision entails for the person concerned and, if relevant, for the members of his family with regard to the loss of the rights enjoyed by every citizen of the Union.” In this respect, the Court states that the assessment of proportionality relies on a threefold test: the severity of the offence, the lapse of time between the naturalisation decision and the withdrawal decision, and the possibility of recovering the original nationality. The court makes no special comment about statelessness prevention, merely noting that, in such a situation, international and European law does not prohibit nationality loss. Revocation of nationality in case of fraud is also a matter of interest for the European Court of Human Rights. In the Ramadan v. Malta case, ruled in 2016, a member of the court confirmed that it had jurisdiction to control a deprivation of nationality: “an arbitrary revocation of citizenship might in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the convention because of its impact on the private life of the individual.”85 The court then proceeded to carry out a two-step assessment. First, the court examined the arbitrariness of the decision on three grounds: whether it was in accordance with the law, whether authorities took diligent and swift action, and whether procedural safeguards were included. Second, the court examined the consequences that the revocation might have under article 8 of the convention, with respect to the protection of the right to private and family life. Finally, the court ruled that there was no violation on the ground of article 8 of the convention. Similarly to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights did not mention the issue of statelessness. (2) Legislation Regarding Individuals Who Have Acquired Citizenship by Fraud (L09) Loss of a nationality acquired by fraud is, by far, the most widespread mode of loss among members of the EU: 25 Member States have formal provisions for this mode of loss. 86 Only three Member States – Croatia, Poland, and Sweden – do not have any specific provision for this mode of loss recorded in the GLOBALCIT database. Their situation should however be more carefully considered, as revocation may be possible in these countries in application of the general principles of administrative law. 87 This mode of loss has undergone many changes. It was formally introduced in some States in the 1990s (the Czech Republic and Spain), other States recently extended the time-limit for depriving individuals of their nationality (Germany and Bulgaria), and one other state improved the procedural safeguards around this mechanism (Belgium). 84 Janko Rottman v Freistaat Bayern, ECLI:EU:C:2010:104. 85 Ramadan v. Malta, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0621JUD007613612. 86 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, United Kingdom. 87 It is also likely that all Member States authorise through general principles of administrative law the revocation or nullification of a nationality acquired in case of error of the administration – i.e., in the good faith of the applicant. In France for instance (art. 27-2 of the civil code) the government can launch the nullification procedure within two years from the acquisition of nationality by the individual. European University Institute 21