CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE — 27 septembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 17 October 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 36010/21 Therese DUSABE against the Netherlands lodged on 8 July 2021 communicated on 27 September 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was born in Rwanda and arrived in the Netherlands in 1998. Although her application for asylum was rejected, she was granted a residence permit in 2003 and acquired Dutch nationality in 2009. In 2017 the Minister of Justice and Security decided to revoke her Dutch nationality following an investigation by the competent authorities which concluded that there existed serious grounds to believe that she was involved in the genocide in Rwanda and was guilty of or responsible for act(s) within the meaning of Article 1F of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva, 1951). The ground for revocation was concealment of facts that she knew or should have known were essential for her applications. The applicant denied any involvement in those acts and argued that the revocation decision had been arbitrary, pointing inter alia to the fact that, due to the restricted disclosure of the investigation report, the procedure lacked sufficient procedural safeguards. She complained of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant also argued that she had not been afforded the opportunity to effectively challenge the revocation decision. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Ramadan v. Malta , no.   76136/12, §§ 62-63, 21 June 2016; K2 v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42387/13, §§ 49, 7 February 2017; Ghoumid and Others v. France , nos. 52273/16 and 4 others, §§ 41-43, 25 June 2020; Usmanov v.   Russia , no. 43936/18, §§ 52-53 and 58, 22 December 2020; and Johansen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 27801/19, §§ 44-45, 1   February   2022)?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, was the decision to revoke the applicant’s Dutch nationality accompanied by the necessary procedural safeguards, allowing her the opportunity to challenge that decision before courts affording the relevant guarantees (see Ramadan , cited above, §§ 84-95; K2 , cited above, §§ 49-63; Ghoumid and Others , cited above, §§   44-52; Usmanov , cited above, § 54; and Johansen , cited above, §§ 46-71)?   3.     Assuming Article 8 to be applicable, did the applicant have an effective remedy at her disposal to the challenge the decision to revoke her Dutch nationality, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?