Chapter 3. The Council of Europe Below, the ECHR and key articles relevant to the prevention of and solutions to statelessness are introduced. Furthermore, the broader work of the CoE on the protection of human rights and minorities are considered for its relevance to the topic of this study, particularly looking at the FCNM. European Convention on Human Rights The first main instrument of the CoE, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) of 1950, has proven to be relevant in nationality matters – as this chapter demonstrates.620 The ECHR is the CoE’s main human rights document, which is of great importance in Europe. The ECHR was adopted in 1950 in the aftermath of World War II. Currently all 47 Member States of the CoE are party to this Treaty. Moreover, the ECHR has a supervisory mechanism: the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This ECHR and the Court have been quite influential in developing the respect for human rights and supplementing constitutional guarantees in the Member States.621 When considering the topics of nationality and statelessness under the Convention, it is first relevant to note that the rights set forth in the ECHR apply also to stateless people in Europe. They can submit an application to the ECtHR claiming that one of the States Parties to the Convention has violated (one of) the rights guaranteed by the ECHR or its Protocols.622 Case law evidences that, indeed, the Court has protected the rights of stateless people, also rights that relate specifically to their statelessness.623 That nationality matters have found a place within the ECHR might at first sight be surprising: the ECHR does not contain a right to a nationality624 or any reference to nationality matters. It was only later, in 1988, that the Committee of Experts for the Development of Human Rights considered the issue of the right to a nationality as a human right. It was discussed whether such right should be added to the ECHR using a ‘Protocol on the Right to Nationality’.625 This idea was, however, abandoned in 1989. According to Johannes Chan, the reasons for this were political: “States are not prepared to forgo their sovereignty and submit themselves to the supervision of the European 620 621 622 623 624 625 Please refer also to section 3.3. Christoph Grabenwarter, for instance, shows how the ECHR and the interpretations thereof by the ECtHR have influenced the development of human rights and supplemented constitutional assurances in Austria: Christoph Grabenwarter, ‘The Significance of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Development of Human Rights’ in Renate Kicker (ed), The Council of Europe. Pioneer and Guarantor for Human Rights and Democracy (Council of Europe Publishing 2010) 39–42. Art 34 ECHR. See for instance Andrejeva v Latvia App No 55707/00 (ECHR, 18 February 2009) ECLI:CE:ECHR:200 9:0218JUD005570700 and Kim v Russia App No 44260/13 (ECHR, 17 July 2014) ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014: 0717JUD004426013. Cf X v Austria App No 5212/71 (ECHR, 5 October 1972) ECLI:CE:ECHR:1972:1005DEC000521271. Johannes Chan, ‘The Right to a Nationality as a Human Right. The Current Trend towards Recognition’ (1991) 12 Human Rights Law Journal 1, 7. Intersentia 119