Factsheet – Deprivation of citizenship November 2023 This Factsheet does not bind the Court and is not exhaustive Deprivation of citizenship Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights states: “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 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.” Most of the cases concerning citizenship brought before the European Court of Human Rights have concerned applicants claiming the right to acquire citizenship and the denial of recognition of such citizenship. In these cases, the Court has observed that although right to a citizenship is not as such guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights or its Protocols, it did not exclude that an arbitrary denial of citizenship might in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of the impact of such a denial on the private life of the individual (Karassev v. Finland, decision of 12 January 1999; Genovese v. Malta, judgment of 11 October 2011). Ramadan v. Malta 21 June 2016 The applicant, originally an Egyptian citizen, acquired Maltese citizenship following his marriage to a Maltese national. It was revoked by the Minister of Justice and Internal Affairs following a decision by the relevant domestic court to annul the marriage on the ground that the applicant’s only reason to marry had been to remain in Malta and acquire Maltese citizenship. The applicant complained about the decision to deprive him of his Maltese citizenship, asserting among other things that he was now stateless since he had had to renounce his Egyptian citizenship in order to become a citizen of Malta and was currently at risk of removal. The Court firstly observed that a loss of a citizenship already acquired or born into, as in the applicant’s case, could have the same (and possibly a bigger) impact on a person’s private and family life as a person claiming the right to acquire citizenship or complaining about the denial of recognition of such citizenship. Thus, also in these situations an arbitrary revocation of citizenship could in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of its impact on the private life of the individual. However, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the applicant’s case, finding that, in the circumstances of the case, the decision depriving him of his citizenship had not been arbitrary. The Court noted in particular that the decision had had a clear legal basis under the relevant national law and had been accompanied by hearings and remedies consistent with procedural fairness. It had to be borne in mind also that that situation had come about as a result of the applicant’s fraudulent behaviour. Indeed, any consequences complained of were to a large extent a result of his own choices and actions. Besides, the applicant, who was not threatened with expulsion from Malta, had nonetheless been able to pursue his business activities and to reside in Malta and it had still been open to him to apply for a work permit and a residence