Legal briefing: Statelessness and the right to respect for private and family life October 2024 real connection in the country. It was further argued that Mr Al-Nashif’s deportation and economic and legal obstacles prevented the family establishing a home in Syria.188 However, this was not addressed by the Court in the context of its Article 8 examination.189 In respect of the interference with Article 8(1), the applicant was recognised as a lawful resident in Bulgaria at the time of his arrest. It was also noted that his children were born in Bulgaria, had acquired Bulgarian nationality, had started school and were raised in Bulgaria. The deportation of the applicant therefore interfered with the right to family life. Where national security is balanced against family life, measures affecting fundamental human rights must be subject to adversarial proceedings before an independent body to review the reasons for the decision.190 The ECtHR therefore concluded that the applicant’s deportation order did not provide the necessary safeguards against arbitrariness and was not based on legal provisions meeting ECHR requirements of lawfulness.191 As such, there had been a violation of Article 8. In Slivenko v. Latvia,192 the applicants were a mother and daughter of Russian origin. After Latvia’s independence, the applicants were added to the register of Latvian residents. Deportation orders were made to both applicants, the mother and daughter, as well as the applicant’s husband who was a Soviet officer discharged from the army. They were later arrested and detained, and subsequently moved to Russia and acquired Russian citizenship. The ECtHR found that the applicants’ removal from Latvia, the country where they had developed since birth and formed their personal, social networks, constituted an interference with their right to private life and home. Although the Court found that the removal had been in accordance with the law, and that it was imposed to protect national security, which is a legitimate aim, it nevertheless held that the interference was not justified as it was not necessary in a democratic society.193 The ECtHR stated that while the scheme for the withdrawal of foreign troops and their families was not contrary as such to Article 8 ECHR, individual circumstances need to be taken into account.194 In this case, the Court found that the applicants were sufficiently integrated into Latvian society, and that they did not develop personal, social, and economic ties in Russia similar to those they developed in Latvia. The Court therefore held that Latvia did not strike a fair balance between the legitimate aim of the protection of national security and the applicants' right to respect for private life and found that there had been a violation of Article 8 ECHR.195 188 ECtHR, Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria (application no. 50963/99), 20 June 2002, paragraph 103. This point was addressed in the Joint partly dissenting opinion of judges Makarczyk, Butkevych and Botoucharova where it was noted that Mr Al-Nashif had close relatives in Syria and had previously declared Syria as his country of residence. 190 ECtHR, Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria (application no. 50963/99), 20 June 2002, paragraphs 122-124. 191 ECtHR, Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria (application no. 50963/99), 20 June 2002, paragraph 128. 192 ECtHR, Slivenko v. Latvia (application no. 48321/99), 9 October 2003. 193 ECtHR, Slivenko v. Latvia (application no. 48321/99), 9 October 2003, paragraphs 113-129. 194 ECtHR, Slivenko v. Latvia (application no. 48321/99), 9 October 2003, paragraph 122. 195 ECtHR, Slivenko v. Latvia (application no. 48321/99), 9 October 2003, paragraphs 93-129. 189 32