Part II. European Law on Nationality and Statelessness however, had not been raised before in domestic courts, which meant that K2 had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in this regard. This led this part of the complaint to be rejected by the ECtHR. This part of the complaint, nonetheless, seems to be very interesting and connects to the matter of the creation of different ‘classes’ of citizenship that is raised in relation to non-discrimination in nationality matters in paragraph 3.3.5 below. It would have been interesting to see what the Court would have done with this matter, given its judgment in the Biao case and because it is a clear side effect of these widely used policies to combat terrorism. Nationality deprivation continues to be an issue that is raised in applications to the ECtHR. In 2020, the the Court decided on a case from France in this regard: Ghoumid and others v. France.740 The case concerned five applicants who all were dual nationals. They were tried and convicted of terrorism-related crimes in 2007. In 2015, they were deprived of their French nationalities. Their arguments to challenge the decision before the ECtHR relied on the right to family life and the right to private life under Article 8 of the Convention, and the ne bis in idem-principle as enshrined in Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR (the right not to be tried or punished twice for the same offence). At the outset of its assessment of the case, the Court declares that the deprivation of nationality which affects the applicants does not constitute an interference with the exercise of their right to respect for their family life, because they can remain in France (at that moment).741 That seems to indicate that (legal) stay in the country and nationality are not connected – according to the ECtHR. Later on in its judgement, the Court nonetheless acknowledges that deprivation of French nationality has weakened their ability to stay in France.742 On the impact on the applicants’ private life, the ECtHR finds no violation of Article 8 either. In finding no violation, the Court first examines the arbitrariness of the measures taken against the applicants: whether these were lawful, whether they are accompanied by the necessary procedural guarantees, and whether the authorities acted with diligence and promptness.743 What is particularly interesting here, is that the applicants were deprived of nationality after a long period had passed since they had committed their crimes and were convicted. That no violation was found in this regard in view of the requirement of diligence and promptness, has been criticized744: 740 741 742 743 744 140 Ghoumid and others v France App No 52273/16 (ECHR, 25 June 2020) ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0625 JUD005227316. Ibid, para 42. Ibid, para 49. See also Karin de Vries & Kees Groenendijk, ‘Annotatie [Case Note] Ghoumid e.a. t. Frankrijk (EHRM, nr. 52273/16 e.v.)’ (European Human Rights Cases – Updates 17 September 2020) para 5 <https://www.ehrc-updates.nl/commentaar/210803?skip_boomportal_auth=1> accessed 4 July 2021. Ghoumid and others v France App No 52273/16 (ECHR, 25 June 2020) ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0625 JUD005227316, para 44. Th is standard has been rendered meaningless almost according to some, see Karin de Vries & Kees Groenendijk, ‘Annotatie [Case Note] Ghoumid e.a. t. Frankrijk (EHRM, nr. 52273/16 e.v.)’ (European Human Rights Cases – Updates 17 September 2020) para 7 https://www.ehrc-updates.nl/ commentaar/210803?skip_boomportal_auth=1 accessed 4 July 2021. See also Ghoumid and others v France App No 52273/16 (ECHR, 25 June 2020) ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0625JUD005227316, para 45. Intersentia