Citizenship Loss and Deprivation in the European Union (27 + 1) nationality, highly discriminatory, has been abandoned through a long process initiated in the 1930s. 91 The prohibition of this principle is clearly established in article 9(1) of the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women New York: States Parties shall grant women equal rights with men to acquire, change or retain their nationality. They shall ensure in particular that neither marriage to an alien nor change of nationality by the husband during marriage shall automatically change the nationality of the wife, render her stateless or force upon her the nationality of the husband. As for the children, unity of nationality within the family persists (as the child has no legal autonomy from the parents), but without any gender consideration and with broad limitations. The 1997 European Convention on Nationality especially states in article 7(2) that “[a] State Party may provide for the loss of its nationality by children whose parents lose that nationality except in cases covered by subparagraphs c [voluntary service in a foreign military force] and d [conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State Party] of paragraph 1. However, children shall not lose that nationality if one of their parents retains it.” Following the Explanatory Report to the Convention, “the impugned conduct of parents should have no adverse consequences on children”; that is why “voluntary service in a foreign military force” and “conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State Party” are not possible grounds to extend the deprivation to the children. More broadly, the report makes clear that “States Parties should in any case be guided by the best interests of the child.”92 This was solemnly confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Tjebbes case, where the judges considered that the principle of unity of nationality within the family needs “to meet the child’s best interests as enshrined in Article 24 of the Charter.”93 Regarding statelessness prevention, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness clearly established a general prohibition in article 6: “If the law of a Contracting State provides for loss of its nationality by a person’s spouse or children as a consequence of that person losing or being deprived of that nationality, such loss shall be conditional upon their possession or acquisition of another nationality.” The collective effect of the loss must, therefore, not apply when statelessness is at stake. (2) Legislation Regarding the Extension of the Loss to Family Members (L11 and L12) The first mode, concerning a person whose parents lose citizenship of a country (L11), can be divided into two situations. The first situation is based on the extension of renunciation of the parents (mode L01, see 2.2.) to the children. Eight Member States formally provide for this mode of loss, meaning that the decision to renounce the nationality of the Member State by the parents will be extended to the children.94 Of course, if one parent does not renounce the nationality, the loss cannot be extended to the child. Half of these Member States consider that consent of the child is needed once a certain age is reached. In Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia, the ‘age of consent’ is 14, whereas in Poland it is 16. In these four Member States, this mode of loss (when applied to children who are able to consent) relates to the voluntary renunciation already described above (see 2.2.). The second situation is based on the extension to the children of the involuntary loss of the parents; this mode of loss is applied by 12 Member States.95 The most common ground for extension is fraud in the acquisition of the parent’s nationality (L09), which will also cause the loss of the children’s nationality in Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Slovenia. In Germany, however, the loss can only occur when the child is under five years of age. Loss of nationality on the 91 Knop, K. and Chinkin, C. (2001). “Remembering Chrystal MacMillan: Women’s Equality and Nationality in International Law.” Michigan Journal of International Law, 22(4), 523-585. 92 Explanatory Report to the European Convention on Nationality, § 75. 93 M.G. Tjebbes and Others v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, ECLI:EU:C:2019:189. 94 Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. 95 Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, France, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Sweden. European University Institute 23