Consequences for the applicant
34. The assessment of consequences does not rely upon a discrete list of elements, but
rather evaluates the concrete impact of the measure on the individual’s private life in
the circumstances of a case.68 In assessing the consequences of a deprivation order,
the Court has considered whether the applicant was rendered stateless, expelled from
the country, or left without any lawful/residence status or valid identity documents.69
35. The Court has repeatedly attached “great importance” to whether deprivation renders
an applicant stateless,70 noting that the impact is particularly severe where
statelessness occurs.71 Stateless people face adverse and disproportionate
consequences in their private and daily lives, particularly given that statelessness is
an enabling right that affects the enjoyment of other fundamental rights.72
36. The interveners submit that deprivation of nationality which results in
statelessness has adverse consequences that will amount to an interference with
the right to respect for private life (and potentially family life) under Article 8.
37. Competent authorities must therefore make an explicit and rigorous assessment73 of
whether deprivation of nationality will render the applicant stateless, in line with
international law and guidance on the determination of statelessness (see §§ 45-51).
That assessment must be undertaken before the deprivation decision is taken, but
reviewing courts must also assess the consequences for the applicant after the decision
was made.
Whether the measure was arbitrary
38. Courts must also determine whether the deprivation of nationality was arbitrary. As
observed in K2, arbitrariness is “a stricter standard than that of proportionality”.74
The Court has considered whether (i) the measure was in accordance with the law;
(ii) accompanied by the necessary procedural safeguards (including access to
appropriate judicial review); and (iii) whether the authorities acted diligently and
swiftly.75 Given the potentially irreversible nature of statelessness and its profound
impact on an individual’s status and personal identity, the obligation on States to act
with particular care and diligence in deprivation cases is heightened.76
39. Statelessness can only be adequately identified and assessed before the
deprivation order if the authorities act diligently. Where national authorities and
reviewing courts fail to exercise due diligence, e.g. by not pursuing evidence and
seeking confirmation of nationality, this affects both the arbitrariness of the
68
Johansen v. Denmark, no. 27801/19, §§ 53-55, 1 February 2022.
Alpeyeva and Dzhalagoniya v. Russia, nos. 7549/09 and 33330/11, § 112, 12 June 2018; Usmanov v.
Russia, op. cit., § 59; Ramadan v. Malta, op. cit., § 90.
70
Ghoumid and Others v. France, op. cit., § 50; El Aroud and B.S. v. Belgium, op. cit., § 74; K2 v. the
United Kingdom, no. 42387/13, § 62, 7 February 2017.
71
Alpeyeva and Dzhalagoniya v. Russia, op. cit., § 112; Emin Huseynov v. Azerbaijan (No. 2), no. 1/16, §
52, 13 July 2023; Hoti v. Croatia, no. 63311/14, § 126-128, 24 April 2018; Sudita Keita v. Hungary, no.
42321/15, § 35, 15 May 2020.
72
ibid; Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32538/10, § 46, 30 January 2020.
73
Johansen v. Denmark, op. cit., §§ 46, 58; A.A. v. Denmark, no. 6041/23, § 6, 12 July 2023; Emin
Huseynov v. Azerbaijan (No. 2), op. cit., §§ 57, 60.
74
K2 v. the United Kingdom, op. cit., § 61.
75
Usmanov v. Russia, op. cit., § 53, 62-65.
76
Alpeyeva and Dzhalagoniya v. Russia, op. cit., §§ 125-126; Emin Huseynov v. Azerbaijan (No. 2), op.
cit., §§ 60-63. In Alpeyeva and Dzhalagoniya, the authorities’ failure to verify the applicants’ nationality
status or consider the consequences of withdrawing identity documents left them stateless and without
recognised legal status for years, rendering the measures arbitrary in violation of Article 8.
69
8