Chapter 3. The Council of Europe “In determining arbitrariness, the Court has had regard to whether the revocation was in accordance with the law; whether it was accompanied by the necessary procedural safeguards, including whether the person deprived of citizenship was allowed the opportunity to challenge the decision before courts affording the relevant guarantees; and whether the authorities acted diligently and swift ly (…).”735 The ECtHR continues by addressing the applicant’s procedural and substantive complaints together and by reviewing the ‘conditions’ relating to the determination of arbitrariness in this case. It also notes that in view of the consequences of the revocation for the applicant that K2 was not rendered stateless by the decision to deprive him of his British citizenship, and that his claims related to his family life were not wellsubstantiated, nor seemed to amount to a breach of Article 8.736 The Court concludes that insofar as the applicant’s Article 8 complaint concerns the decision to deprive him of his citizenship, it is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected. As regards the part of the complaint that addresses his exclusion from the UK, the ECtHR reiterated that, subject to their treaty obligations, states have the right to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens.737 Having regard to the limited nature of the interference of the exclusion with K2’s private- and family life, and the extent of his terrorism-related activities, the ECtHR does not consider that the decision to bar him from re-entering the UK was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued: namely, the protection of the public from the threat of terrorism.738 This complaint is therefore also rejected by the Court. When considering this case from the perspective of addressing nationality matters and statelessness, it is clear that it sheds light on a practice that is increasingly used by states to deal with terrorism: deprivation of nationality. The case is helpful in that it clearly sets out a number of points that are to be taken into account when determining whether revocation of citizenship is arbitrary. It is also clear on the importance of having due regard for the consequences of such revocation for the individual(s) affected by it. In this sense, it presents a straightforward framework on revocation of nationality. Because these guarantees are clearly delineated, it could help in preventing statelessness resulting from deprivation, also because the consequences for the person concerned are considered. That people who become stateless as a result of revocation of nationality will not always be protected by this, was already shown in the analysis of the Ramadan case above. The applicant in this case, however, submitted a complaint under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 as well. According to him, he was treated differently from UK citizens considered a threat to national security who did not hold a second nationality, as they could not be deprived of their British citizenship.739 This complaint, 735 736 737 738 739 Ibid, para 50. Ibid, para 62. Ibid, para 65. Ibid, para 66. Ibid, para 47. Intersentia 139