In so far as the Charter contains rights which correspond to the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, ‘the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the [ECHR]’, including its case law, not preventing the EU from providing more extensive protection.44 Based on this rule and the relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights three Charter provisions seem directly applicable to the acquisition of nationality at birth:45 Right Charter Right to private Article 7 life ECHR Explanation Article 8 The European Court of Human Rights established a clear link between the access to nationality and the person’s ability to exercise her/his right to private life. In Genovese, the Court ruled that the private life of an individual is a concept that embraces aspects of a person’s social identity, and that the impact of excluding a child from the acquisition of nationality at birth on her/his social identity can be such as to result in the violation of the right to private life. Prohibition of discrimination Article 21 Article 14 The European Court of Human Rights, on various occasions, evoked the breach of States parties’ non-discrimination obligation in conjunction with the violation of the right to private life, in nationality-related cases. In Kurić, the applicants’ nationality status, while in Genovese, the applicant’s status as a child born out of wedlock was found as a prohibited ground for differentiated treatment in certain nationality-related matters. In Genovese, the Court made it clear that the violation of Article 14 (in conjunction with Article 8) can be established even when the harm does not reach the threshold of violating Article 8, in itself. Right to an effective remedy Article 47 Article 13 In Kurić, the European Court of Human Rights established the breach of the right to an effective remedy in conjunction with the right to private life for the lack of an effective and timely redress against the deprivation of nationality. Beyond these rights having an obvious parallel in the ECHR, two other Charter provisions may be evoked, too, as relevant to the issue in focus: »» Children’s right to the protection and care necessary for their well-being and the supremacy of the best interest principle (Article 24): Observing the best interest provision in conjunction with Article 7 (right to private life), on the basis of the consequent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights,46 as well as considering that a child’s nationality may have a crucial impact on her/his access to the necessary protection and care mechanisms, this provision appears relevant in the context of States’ efforts to prevent statelessness at birth and properly determine all children’s nationality born on their soil. »» The principle of the right to good administration, including impartial, fair and properly reasoned decisions taken within a reasonable time, the right to be heard and the access to case files (Article 41): In explicit terms, this provision only binds the bodies and institutions of the Union itself (but not the Member States). Nevertheless, the jurisprudence of the CJEU clearly made these rights applicable in any procedure by any Member State authority, provided that it acts in the scope of EU law. In the M.M. case,47 the Court directly evoked Article 41 of the Charter as binding on Member States’ administrative practices, while later the same Court rejected this approach, arguing that this provision only applies to the EU itself.48 Nevertheless, the Court still maintained in recent judgments that the right to good administration is a general principle of EU law, therefore has a wider scope of application than the more limitative wording of the Charter.49 Therefore, while Article 41 of the Charter cannot be directly relied on in national procedures, the right to good administration, as a general principle of EU law, can. The rich jurisprudence by the EU Court of Justice that has developed and interprets this general principle served as basis for the concrete 44 45 46 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 52 (3). See earlier the full references to the cases cited in this table. Which in light of Article 52 (3) of the Charter shall guide the interpretation of the parallel provision from the Charter (in this case Article 7, the right to private life). M.M. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General, C‑277/11, 22 November 2012, Paras 87-88. See for example: Sophie Mukarubega v. Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis, C‑166/13, 5 November 2014, Para. 44; Khaled Boudjlida v. Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques, C‑249/13, 11 December 2014, Para. 32. H.N. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General, C‑604/12, 8 May 2014, Paras 49-50; YS v. Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel and Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v. M.S., Joined cases C‑141/12 and C‑372/12, 17 July 2014, Para. 69. 47 48 49 9