decision must be guided by the general principles of proportionality and the avoidance of arbitrary decision-making in the light of EU law and national law,179 in particular, it must assess ‘the consequences that the decision entails for the person concerned and, if relevant, for the members of his family with regard to the loss of the rights enjoyed by every citizen of the Union’. 180 A national court may therefore decide, prior to ordering a decision withdrawing naturalization to take effect, to afford the person concerned a reasonable period of time in order to try to recover the nationality of his Member State of origin.181 Thus, the CJEU ruling leaves no doubt that EU Member States’ nationality policy is not beyond the scrutiny of EU institutions. Finally, on the issue of persecution, it took some time for the CJEU to deal with questions of interpretation relating to Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention (as incorporated in the EU Qualification Directive) but, it recently gave guidance on the concept of ‘persecution’ in the contexts of a religious persecution182 and of a particular social group and gay concealment.183 According to Article 9(1) EU Qualification Directive, ‘acts of persecution’ within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention must: (a) be sufficiently serious by their nature or repetition as to constitute a severe violation of basic human rights, in particular the rights from which derogation cannot be made under Article 15(2) of the [ECHR]; or (b) be an accumulation of various measures, including violations of human rights which is sufficiently severe as to affect an individual in a similar manner as mentioned in (a). Ibid, para.55. Ibid, para.56. In particular, the court will assess whether withdrawal of naturalization or loss of nationality is justified in relation to the gravity of the offence, the lapse of time between the naturalization decision and the withdrawal, and the possibility (or not) of recovering the original nationality. 181 Ibid, para.58. 182 Joined Cases C-71/11 and C-99/11 Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. Y and Z, judgment of 5 September 2012. The Court found that not all infringements of freedom of religion constitute an act of persecution, but: - ‘there may be an act of persecution as a result of interference with the external manifestation of religious freedom’, and - for the purpose of determining whether interferences with freedom of religion constitute an act of persecution, ‘the competent authorities must ascertain, in the light of the personal circumstances of the person concerned, whether that person, as a result of exercising that freedom in his country of origin, runs a genuine risk of, inter alia, being prosecuted of subject to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It is not reasonable to expect people to refrain from religious practices that may expose him/her to a real risk of persecution (para.81 of the judgment). The CJEU also rejected the distinction between core and non-core areas of the right to religious freedom (paras.62 and 63 of the judgment). 183 Joined Cases C-199/12, C-200/12 and C-201/12, X, Y and Z, judgment of 7 November 2013. The Court found: ‘the existence of criminal laws … which specifically target homosexuals, supports the finding that those persons must be regarded as forming a particular social group’; the criminalisation of homosexual acts per se does not constitute an act of persecution, unless the sanction or punishment of such acts is disproportionate or discriminatory’; and applicants for asylum cannot reasonably be expected to conceal this homosexuality in their country of origin or to exercise reserve in the expression of their sexual orientation (para.79 of the judgment). 179 180 32