Jules Lepoutre In all the Member States which provide for the loss of nationality in case of fraud, the operative event for this loss of nationality is similar and generally refers to the bad faith of the applicant: forged documents, wrong information, concealed facts, misleading information, retention of information, etc. In Germany, infringement of the criminal law during the process, such as threat or bribe, is also a ground for nationality deprivation. Member States such as Cyprus, Denmark, and Finland only provide for revocation when the fraud had a “decisive” impact on the naturalisation process. Only two Member States – Bulgaria and Luxembourg – forbid the loss of nationality in case of fraud when statelessness could occur, thus going far beyond the obligations of international law. Belgium leaves individuals a “reasonable period of time” to try to recover, if possible, their nationality of origin. Most Member States apply their decision by following a withdrawal procedure, whereas others 88 nullify the acquisition decision. These procedures raise two issues. The first issue, in the case of nullification, is to protect the situation of ‘bona fide third parties’ who could be affected by the nullification (i.e., its retroactive effects). Spain thus directly specifies in its law that “third parties in good faith” are protected from any “detrimental effects.” The second issue, for both the withdrawal and the nullification procedure, is to determine when and under which conditions the State should launch the procedure. Nine Member States define a limited time period for launching the procedure after citizenship acquisition, guaranteeing a certain degree of legal certainty. In other words, these Member States have defined a specific period of time during which the procedure can be applied; once the period is over, the individual may under no circumstances be subjected to a withdrawal or nullification decision. In most cases, this period varies from five (Belgium, Finland, and Germany) to ten years (Bulgaria, Hungary, and Latvia), and reaches twelve years in the Netherlands, fifteen in Spain. In Latvia and the Netherlands, these limitations do not apply in the event of a conviction by the International Criminal Court – probably to follow the regime of mass crimes (e.g., crime against humanity) in international criminal law where no statute of limitation applies (imprescriptibilité). In France, the government can launch the nullification procedure within two years from discovering the fraud. This is less protective than a time limitation from the acquisition of nationality, but still a better protection than general administrative law where the act obtained by fraud can be nullified at any time. 89 To assess whether it is desirable or not to launch the procedure, the Finish law establishes that the decision must be “based on an overall consideration of the person’s situation,” especially “the culpability of the act and the circumstances in which it is committed, and of the ties with Finland of the person who has made the application or declaration.” The principle of proportionality is therefore added by design to the procedure, perfectly line with EU law. 3.2.5. Loss Linked to Family Relationship (1) International and European Legal Framework For many years, the principle of unity of nationality within the family provided that each family must have only one nationality, mainly based on that of the husband/father. This principle worked both ways regarding loss of nationality: the married woman was supposed to lose her nationality of origin in order to acquire that of her husband; the loss of nationality of the husband was supposed to extend to the other members of the nuclear family. This patriarchal approach, establishing the family as the ‘property’ of the father and husband, was the leading framework during the 19th century.90 This principle of unity of 88 Austria, Bulgaria, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. 89 Article L. 241-2, Code des relations entre le public et l’administration. 90 See Heuer, J. (2007). The Family and the Nation. Gender and Citizenship in Revolutionary France, 1789-1830. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press. See also Lepoutre, J. (2019). “La Nationalité dans le Couple: Perspectives Historiques.” In La Nationalité, Enjeux et Perspectives, edited by A. Dionisi-Peyrusse, V. Parisot, F. Jault-Seseke and F. Marchadier, 253-266. Paris: LGDJ. 22 Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Working Papers