34 RAMADAN v. MALTA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION 8. The Convention organs have consistently held that a “right to nationality” similar to that in Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or a right to acquire a particular nationality, is not guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, and have therefore declared the complaints related to this right incompatible ratione materiae33. This has also been applied to non-citizens and stateless persons prevented from acquiring the nationality of a State in cases of State succession 34. However, in the Karassev case, the Court did not exclude “that an arbitrary denial of a citizenship might in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of the impact of such denial on the private life of the individual”35. There is nothing to suggest that the above principle cannot apply to cases of deprivation or loss of citizenship or to the right to renounce citizenship. 9. The issue of arbitrary denial of citizenship can also arise under Article 3 of Protocol No. 4, if the purpose of the denial is to evade the prohibition against expulsion of nationals. In Slivenko v. Latvia36, the Court was asked to decide whether the expulsion of a Russian military officer’s wife and daughter pursuant to the Latvian-Russian treaty on the withdrawal of Russian troops violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 4. 10. Finally, it may be mentioned that the European Commission of Human Rights did not exclude that the denial of nationality on the ground of race or ethnicity might also constitute degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention37. 11. In sum, the now well-established prohibition of arbitrary denial or revocation of citizenship in the Court’s case-law presupposes, by logical 33. See X v. Austria, no. 5212/71, Commission decision of 5 October 1972, DR 43, p. 69; Family K. and W. v. the Netherlands, no. 11278/84, Commission decision of 1st July 1985, DR 43, p. 216; and Poenaru v. Romania (dec.), no. 51864/99, 13 November 2001. 34. See for instance Fedorova v. Latvia (dec.), no. 69405/01, 9 October 2003. 35. Karassev v. Finland (dec.), no. 31414/96, ECHR 1999-II, and the case-law mentioned in paragraph 61 of the present judgment. This has also been the case-law of the Constitutional Court of Malta (see Tarek Mohammed Ibrahim v. Vici Prim Ministru et, decided on 28 May 2012). Mr Karassev was born in Finland of parents who were citizens of the Russian Federation on the date of his birth. The Court concluded that the decision of the Finnish authorities refusing the citizenship by birth was not arbitrary in a way which could raise issues under Article 8. As to the consequences of the denial to recognise the applicant as a Finnish national, the Court noted that he was not threatened with expulsion from Finland, neither alone or together with his parents, who had residence permits, which could also be issued to the applicant at their request, the applicant also enjoyed social benefits and the like in Finland. Against this background, the Court did not find that the consequences of the refusal to recognise the applicant as a citizen of Finland, taken separately or in combination with the refusal itself, could be considered sufficiently serious so as to raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention. The application was declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. 36. Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, ECHR 2002-II. 37. Slepcik v. the Netherlands and the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 30913/96, 2 September 1996.