Chapter 3. The Council of Europe “[T]he standard of “diligence and promptness” of the European Court case-law is normally designed to prevent any delayed measure. Moreover, as the French Government acknowledged during the proceedings, this delay was entirely caused by the political context. These five nationality revocations were clearly meant to show political action against terrorism, in a climate of uncertainty (after the Charlie Hebdo shooting, before the Paris attacks). Far from issuing any criticism, the judges considered that “given the circumstances of this case” this timeframe did not reveal any arbitrariness. In other words, the political purpose of the revocations had precisely the effect to justify the delay of the measures – where one could have imagined the exact opposite.”745 On the consequences of the deprivation of nationality on the applicants’ private lives, the Court takes into account that – so far – no removal measures have been taken. The ECtHR does acknowledge though that deprivation of nationality constitutes loss of an element of their identity as protected by the right to private life.746 In its reasoning in relation to this, the Court says it understands the government’s considerations for showing a greater firmness as regards terrorism-related crimes, and takes into account the applicants’ own actions. The ECtHR also says that it attaches great importance to the fact that all applicants have another nationality, meaning that the decision to deprive does not render them stateless.747 This seems to indicate that the considerations and finding might have turned out differently if statelessness would have resulted in this case, but certainly signifies the Court’s concern with avoiding statelessness in these situations. In conclusion, the consequences of the measures taken against the applicants on their private life are not considered disproportionate by the ECtHR.748 The argument regarding the principle of ne bis in idem, as included in Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 – meaning that nationality deprivation would constitute a penalty, which is actually based on a previous criminal conviction – had not been submitted to the Court before in this context. The ECtHR, however, finds that the nationality deprivation measures respond to terrorist acts which undermine the very foundation of democracy. The Court further recalls that this measure does not in itself result in the removal from French territory of the applicants and that is not a sanction that could be said to be criminal in nature.749 The application as regards Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 is therefore declared inadmissible. Commentators have observed that the ECtHR thereby has accepted that deprivation of nationality in a counter-terrorism context is a measure which primarily 745 746 747 748 749 Jules Lepoutre, ‘Ghoumid and others v. France: The Grey Hole of Nationality Revocation’ (GLOBALCIT Blog, 5 August 2020) <https://globalcit.eu/ghoumid-and-others-v-france-the-grey-holeof-nationality-revocation/> accessed 4 July 2021. Ghoumid and others v France App No 52273/16 (ECHR, 25 June 2020) ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0625 JUD005227316, para 49. Ibid, para 50. Ibid, para 51. Ibid, para 72. Intersentia 141