the person concerned can present an ‘arguable claim’29 of such violation. In the Kurić case, the Court found that the fact that the applicants did not have access to ‘adequate’ and ‘effective’ remedies to redress, at the material time, their ‘erasure’ from the list of citizens (which is a violation of Article 8 itself), constituted a breach of Article 13 as well, in conjunction with Article 8.30 While the best interest of the child principle is not explicitly included in the ECHR, the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly evoked this concept in relation to Article 8 of the Convention. In Mennesson, the Court held that it was seriously questionable whether the non-recognition of a legal parent-child relationship (which also impacted the children’s nationality31) was compatible with the best interest of the children concerned.32 Beyond this concrete reference, the following relevant principles emerge from the review of the Court’s judgments that are not necessarily related to nationality and/or the right to respect for private life:33 »» In all decisions concerning children, their best interests must be paramount; »» The identification of the child’s best interests requires to weigh a number of factors in the balance, which may vary depending on the circumstances of the case in question, and there is no exhaustive list of such factors; »» The best interests of the child, depending on their nature and seriousness, may override those of the parent(s); »» It is in the child’s best interests to ensure her/his development in a safe and secure environment. III. EUROPEAN UNION LAW: APPLICABILITY AND RELEVANT STANDARDS EU Member States are not bound by concrete, technical EU law standards that would regulate or set a clear framework for domestic nationality legislation. At the same time, certain aspects of EU Law are applicable regarding a States obligation to avoid statelessness at birth.34 THE ‘DUE REGARD TO COMMUNITY LAW’ REFERENCE IN CJEU JURISPRUDENCE The Court of Justice of the EU (hereinafter ‘CJEU’) has repeatedly confirmed in its jurisprudence that while it is for each Member State to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality, when doing so, they must have ‘due regard to Community law’.35 If nationality-related procedures could not fall under the scope of EU law (at least under certain circumstances), these repeated references would not make sense, thus raising serious concerns with regard to the proper application of the subsidiarity principle, as defined by the EU Treaty.36 Based on these judgments we can conclude that, in general terms, EU law is relevant to procedures related to the acquisition of nationality, and therefore to the procedures aiming at preventing statelessness at birth by conferring an EU Member State’s nationality to a child born in the EU. CJEU jurisprudence is yet relatively silent on which actual standards are applicable in these cases and 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 See among others Leander v. Sweden, Application no. 9248/81, 26 March 1987, Para. 77. Kurić and Others v. Slovenia, Application no. 26828/06, Grand Chamber Judgment of 26 July 2012, Paras 369-372. See above. Mennesson v. France, Application no. 65192/11, Judgment of 26 September 2014, Para. 99. See for example: Görgülü v. Germany, Application no. 74969/01, 26 February 2004, Para. 43; Krisztián Barnabás Tóth v. Hungary, Application no. 48494/06, 12 February 2013, Para. 32; Qama v. Albania and Italy, Application no. 4604/09, 8 January 2013, Para. 81; Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, Application no. 41615/07, 6 July 2010, Paras 135-136; Y. C. v. United Kingdom, Application no. 4547/10, 13 March 2012, Paras 134-135; R. and H. v. United Kingdom, Application no. 35348/06, 31 May 2011, Paras 73-74. See a partly different set of arguments for the applicability of EU law with regard to naturalisation procedures in Gábor Gyulai, The Black Box of Nationality – The Naturalisation of Refugees and Stateless Persons in Hungary, Hungarian Helsinki Committee, pp. 10-13, 2015, available here; http://bit.ly/2lRPqLb. Mario Vicente Micheletti and others v Delegación del Gobierno en Cantabria, C-369/90, 7 July 1992, Para. 10; Belgian State v. Fatna Mesbah, C‑179/98, 11 November 1999, Para. 29; Kunqian Catherine Zhu and Man Lavette Chen v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, C‑200/02, 19 October 2004, Para. 37; Janko Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern, C‑135/08, 2 March 2010, Para. 39 Treaty of the European Union, Article 5 (2) – If nationality-related procedures could not fall under the scope of EU law, the Court of Justice would not have the right to evoke standards of EU law in this respect. 7