SAHNI ARTICLE 3.3.21 (WORD) (DO NOT DELETE) 140 Gonzaga Journal of International Law 5/6/2021 7:21 PM Vol. 24:2 investigation and criminal proceedings six months after Rottmann gained German citizenship.263 Germany revoked the citizenship on grounds of deception.264 This retroactive action and Rottmann’s resulting stateless status fell within the ambit of Article 7. However, the German authorities could have prevented the latter situation from arising if they had investigated Rottmann’s background thoroughly as a citizenship applicant. The swiftness with which the Freistaat Bayern had granted nationality to Rottmann is disconcerting. The Applicant was an alleged white-collar criminal in his Home State and had withheld required facts to falsify his application in the Host State. 265 The ECJ directed Austria to apply the proportionality principle 266 in assessing whether to restore Rottman’s birth citizenship. “The Court cannot, however, rule on the question whether a decision not yet adopted is contrary to European Union law. As the Austrian Government maintained at the hearing, the Austrian authorities will possibly have to adopt a decision on the question whether the applicant in the main proceedings is to recover his 263. 264. 265. Id. ¶ 27. Id. ¶ 28. See Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Oberlander, [2000] F.C.J. No. 229 ¶¶ 177, 178, 189, 198, & 209-214 (Can.) (QL), appeal granted, [2016] 4 F.C.R 55 (Can.), appeal dismissed, [2019] F.C.A 64 (Can.) (where in a similar situation the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the revocation of an ex-Nazi interpreter’s Canadian citizenship. Helmut Oberlander had applied in Germany for a permanent residence or landed immigrant visa to enter Canada. He knowingly withheld material facts from the interviewing visa officer. He was granted the visa in February 1954 and moved to Canada two months later. Canada awarded Oberlander citizenship in 1960. However, the citizenship was obtained wrongfully as it was based on the misrepresentations made during the 1954 interview. It was in breach of Section 18(1) of the Canadian Citizenship Act.). But see Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Alexander Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, ¶¶ 147-149, 151-153, 155, 196, 317-318, 321, & 342 (Can.) (where, ruling contrarily in a more recent judgment, the Supreme Court restored the jus soli Canadian citizenship of the Respondent. It should not be overlooked that the Respondent was born in Canada as a direct result of deception. The parents were Russian nationals who had entered Canada but assumed false Canadian identities to reside without suspicion and start a family. According to the judgment, the parents “assumed the identities of two deceased Canadians and fraudulently obtained Canadian passports”. They used the identities to relocate to France and the U.S wherein the family acquired U.S. citizenship. In 2010, the U.S. authorities investigated the true identities of the parents. They arrested the parents on grounds of money laundering and conspiracy to act as unregistered agents of a foreign government. The parents pled guilty to the latter and were deported to their home country. The Respondent’s U.S. citizenship was revoked subsequently. In 2014, the Canadian Registrar of Citizenship cancelled the Respondent’s certificate of citizenship pursuant to Section 26(3) of the Citizenship Regulations SOR/93-246 permitting the Registrar to cancel the certificate if the holder is not entitled to the certificate. The Registrar relied on Section 3(2) of the Citizenship Act which does not apply the jus soli principle to children of “a diplomatic or consular officer or other representative or employee in Canada of a foreign government.” The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation. The judgment does not place weight on the deception or misrepresentation employed by the Respondent’s parents to live in Canada and qualify their potential offspring for automatic nationality.) 266. See Treaty on European Union, supra note 160, at 13 (defining the principle of proportionality whereby “the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.”)