Part II. European Law on Nationality and Statelessness Court of Human Rights on the question of nationality”.626 As such, the ECHR remained without a right to a nationality. Nonetheless, when studying the case law of the Court on nationality matters, it becomes clear that nationality issues have been discussed in the context of Article 8 of the ECHR (right to respect for private and family life) in particular. The introduction of nationality as a topic under Article 8 has been a process of interpretation by the Court (and the European Commission of Human Rights until the entry into force of Protocol No. 11).627 Even though cases on nationality have been lodged with the relevant supervising body since the 1970s, it was felt that “the regulation of nationality was not a matter on which the ECHR had any bearing”.628 That is perhaps not surprising, as nationality matters are traditionally viewed as a competence of the sovereign state, on which, indeed, international laws in principle do not have bearing.629 In the 1990s, some development becomes visible in case law. In a case regarding the withdrawal of nationality, resulting in statelessness, the European Commission of Human Rights630 noted when considering admissibility and in particular Article 8 that “la requête pose de sérieuses questions de fait et de droit qui ne peuvent être résolues à ce stade de l’examen de la requête, mais nécessitent un examen au fond”.631 Even though the decision on the merits of this case did not result in the finding of a violation of the ECHR, a number of other cases followed in which it was acknowledged that, depending on the circumstances, nationality matters may raise an issue under different articles of the Convention, particularly Article 8, but also Articles 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).632 These cases lead us to a key case as regards the development of nationality matters under the ECHR: the 1999 case of Karassev v. Finland. Even though the ECtHR did not find a violation in this case and declared it inadmissible, it is important in the recognition that arbitrary denial of citizenship might raise issues under Article 8 under certain circumstances because of the impact of such denial on the private life of an individual.633 This demonstrates to some extent an acknowledgement of an aspect 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 120 Ibid, 9. With Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, restructuring the control machinery established thereby, CETS No. 155, 1994, a permanent ECtHR replaced the existing part-time Court and European Commission of Human Rights (Commission). Protocol No. 11 entered into force on 1 November 1998. Laura van Waas, ‘Fighting Statelessness and Discriminatory Nationality Law in Europe’ (2012) 14 European Journal of Migration and Law 243–260, 250. These were decisions of the European Commission on Human Rights, the Court’s predecessor. Cf Peter Spiro, ‘A New International Law of Citizenship’ (2011) 105 American Journal of International Law 694. Hereinafter: the Commission. “The application raises serious questions of fact and law which cannot be resolved at this stage of the examination of the application, but necessitate an examination of the merits” (transl CV). See Kafkasli c Turquie App No 21106/92 (European Commission on Human Rights, 22 May 1995, admissibility). Laura van Waas, ‘Fighting Statelessness and Discriminatory Nationality Law in Europe’ (2012) 14 European Journal of Migration and Law 251–252. Andrei Karassev and Family v Finland App No 31414/96 (ECHR, 12 January 1999, admissibility) ECLI: CE:ECHR:1999:0112DEC003141496. Intersentia