of Europe has since adopted the European Convention on Nationality (1997), which guarantees such a right. Article 4 provides the following principles: a everyone has the right to a nationality; b statelessness shall be avoided; c no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her nationality; d neither marriage nor the dissolution of a marriage between a national of a State Party and an alien, nor the change of nationality by one of the spouses during marriage, shall automatically affect the nationality of the other spouse. The European Convention on Nationality provides further specific rules on the acquisition of nationality by children at birth in accordance with the principles of jus sanguinis and jus soli (Article 6). However, the application of this Convention is limited by the absence of any form of independent reviewing and enforcement mechanism. In addition, the Council of Europe has adopted the Convention on the Avoidance of Statelessness in relation to State Succession (2006), as well as an array of Recommendations from the Parliamentary Assembly (PA) and the Council of Ministers (CM) on nationality matters, including PA Recommendation 696 (1973) on certain aspects of the acquisition of nationality and PA Recommendation 194 (1959) on the nationality of children of stateless persons, CM Recommendation (83) 1 on stateless nomads and nomads of undetermined nationality, CM Recommendation (84) 21 on the acquisition by refugees of the nationality of the host country, CM Recommendation (99) 18 on the avoidance and reduction of statelessness, and CM Recommendation (2009) 13 on the nationality of children. Key to an effective protection of stateless persons against forced removal and/or the conditions of removals from members of the Council of Europe, are binding judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg) in its interpretation of the ECHR. In 1999, the European Court of Human Rights held, in principle, 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 a denial on the private life of the individual’.153 A few years later, violation of Article 8 was found on this ground in a number of cases.154 For example, in Genovese v Malta, the Court recognized nationality as an inherent part of a person’s social identity, protected as such as an element of private life. 155 In Andrejeva v Latvia, a case involving a stateless person who was permanently resident non-citizen under Latvian law and denied pension entitlements equal to those of citizens, the European Court of Human Rights found this treatment to be discriminatory (violation of Article 14) in conjunction with the applicant’s property rights (Article 1, Protocol 1).156 Karassev and Family v Finland, application no. 31314/96, decision of 12 January 1999, at p.10 (inadmissible). See, Sisojeva and Others v Latvia, application no. 60654/00, judgment of 16 June 2005, and Kaftailova c Lettonie, application no. 59643/00, judgment of 22 June 2006 (State authorities have an obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to regularize the stay of aliens but not to give them a choice of legal status or residence permit). 155 Genovese v Malta, Application No.53124/09, European Court of Human Rights, 11 October 2011. 156 Andrejeva v Latvia, Application No.55707/00, European Court of Human Rights, 18 February 2009. 153 154 27