K2 v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION 11 security case against him and he was unable to participate effectively in the legal proceedings. 47. The applicant also complained under Article 14 read together with Article 8 that he was treated differently from British citizens considered a threat to national security who did not hold a second nationality, as they could not be deprived of their British citizenship; and from non-national residents who enjoyed a suspensory appeal against the revocation of leave to remain in the United Kingdom. THE LAW A. Alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention 48. The applicant complains under the substantive and procedural limb of Article 8 of the Convention about the decisions to deprive him of his British citizenship and exclude him from the United Kingdom. Article 8 provides as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 1. Deprivation of citizenship 49. The Court has accepted that an arbitrary denial 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 (see Karassev v. Finland (dec.), no. 31414/96, ECHR 1999-II; Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 77, ECHR 2002-II; Savoia and Bounegru v. Italy (dec.), no. 8407/05, 11 July 2006; and Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, § 30, 11 October 2011). Recently the Court has accepted that the same principles must apply to the revocation of citizenship already obtained, since this might lead to a similar – if not greater – interference with the individual’s right to respect for family and private life (see Ramadan v. Malta, no. 76136/12, § 85, ECHR 2016 (extracts)). In determining whether a revocation of citizenship is in breach of Article 8, the Court has addressed two separate issues: whether the revocation was arbitrary; and what the consequences of revocation were for the applicant. 50. In determining arbitrariness, the Court has had regard to whether the revocation was in accordance with the law; whether it was accompanied by