Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2017/7 - - Conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State (8(3)(a)(ii) 1961 Convention) Has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration, of allegiance to another State, or given definite evidence of his determination to repudiate his allegiance to the Contracting State (8(3)(b) 1961 Convention Is involved in voluntary service in a foreign military force 8(3) 1961 Convention) Regional law can differ from the 1961 Convention on this matter. The European Convention on Nationality (ECN) includes similar grounds under which nationality can be revoked. Unlike the 1961 Convention, only deprivation of nationality acquired by “fraudulent conduct, false information or concealment of any relevant fact attributable to the applicant” can lead to statelessness under the ECN.43 It is also generally accepted under international law that a person’s nationality can be revoked if it has been acquired through fraud, even if it leads to statelessness.44 So, international law gives limited guidance on making a distinction between groups of citizens in the context of whether denationalisation is legitimate or discriminatory. Jurisprudence on differential treatment between groups of citizens may give further guidance on the interpretation of this issue. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is yet to elaborate on the principle of non-discrimination in a deprivation of nationality context. While the case of K2 v. United Kingdom concerned deprivation of nationality,45 it did not elaborate on the issue of differential treatment between naturalised and birthright citizens. K2 is a dual citizen (Sudanese since birth and naturalised British). He was deprived of his British nationality and barred from re-entering the United Kingdom on account of his terrorism-related activities pursuant to Article 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. K2 complained that the decision to deprive him of his British citizenship resulted into being treated different from birthright British citizens pursuant to Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination). Interestingly, the ECHR does not entail a separate right to a nationality but interprets aspects of this right under Article 8 of the Convention. However, The ECtHR did not deal with this question of differential treatment as K2 did not raise this issue at domestic courts and had, therefore, not exhausted all domestic sources. The case of Biao v. Denmark does provides guidance from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in understanding to what extent it is lawful to treat naturalised citizens differently from birthright citizens.46 In this case, a complaint was made by a naturalised Danish citizen of Togolese origin and his Ghanaian wife, Mr. and Ms. Biao. To be eligible for family reunification, they had to meet the ‘attachment requirement’. According to the Danish Aliens Act 2003, this entails that family reunification for people who became Danish nationals at a later stage is possible, only if they have held Danish citizenship for at least 28 years to ensure that people have strong ties with Denmark. Biao complained that this ‘28-year rule’ resulted in a difference in treatment between those born as Danish nationals and those who had acquired Danish citizenship later in life. He claims that this is a violation of Article 8 of the European 43 Council of Europe, European Convention on Nationality, 6 November 1997, ETS 166, Article 7(1)(b). The European Court of Human Rights concludes that revocation of citizenship might in some circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 ECHR, because of its impact on the private life of the individual. Two things must be assessed when depriving a person’s nationality 1) is the revocation arbitrary? 2) What were the consequences for the applicant? For more information, see: ECtHR, No. 42387/13, 9 March 2017 (K2 v. United Kingdom); ECtHR, No. 76136/12, 21 June 2016 (Ramadan v. Malta). 45 ECtHR, K2 v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 9 March 2017, Application No. 42387/13. 46 ECtHR, No. 38590/10, 25 March 2014, (Biao v. Denmark). 44 12