GHOUMID AND OTHERS v. FRANCE JUDGMENT
In the case of Ghoumid and Others v. France,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Síofra O’Leary, President,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,
Ganna Yudkivska,
André Potocki,
Lətif Hüseynov,
Lado Chanturia,
Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges,
and Victor Soloveytchik, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 52273/16 and 52285/16, 52290/16, 52294/16 and
52302/16) against the French Republic lodged with the Court under Article
34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr Bachir Ghoumid (no. 52273/16), a
Moroccan national (“the first applicant”), Mr Fouad Charouali
(no. 52285/16), a Moroccan national (“the second applicant”), Mr Attila
Turk (no. 52290/16), a Turkish national (“the third applicant”), Mr
Redouane Aberbri (no. 52294/16), a Moroccan national (“the fourth
applicant”), and Mr Rachid Ait El Haj, a Moroccan national (“the fifth
applicant”) (“the applicants”);
the parties’ observations;
the invitation to the Turkish Government to submit observations under
Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and their wish not to make use of this
possibility;
the decision of 23 May 2017 to give notice to the French Government
(“the Government”) of the complaint concerning Article 8 of the
Convention, to the effect that the deprivation of the applicants’ nationality
breached their right to respect for their family life, and the complaint under
Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the
applications pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court;
Having deliberated in private on 2 June 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerned five dual nationals who were convicted in 2007
for their participation in a criminal conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, and
released from prison in 2009 or 2010, before being deprived of their French
nationality in October 2015 by orders of the Prime Minister. They relied in
particular on Article 8 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.
1