CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 avril 2023

.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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 24 April 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 43250/22 Pierre Claver KARANGWA against the Netherlands lodged on 31 August 2022 communicated on 6 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was born in Rwanda and arrived in the Netherlands in 1998. He was granted a residence permit in 1999 and acquired Dutch nationality in 2002. In 2013 the Deputy Minister of Security and Justice decided to revoke his Dutch nationality following an investigation by the competent authorities which concluded that there existed serious grounds to believe that he 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 he knew or should have known were essential for his 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. In its ruling of 11 May 2022 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State acknowledged that in situations like these it was difficult for the person concerned to deliver proof ( in een moeilijke bewijspositie verkeert). Therefore, it held that the administrative courts, when reviewing the probative value of the investigation report in such cases, should have taken note with due care of the underlying documents, should have ensured that the information contained in the disclosed part of the investigation report was supported by the undisclosed information, and should also have ensured that the disclosed part gave a representative picture of all the information contained in those underlying documents. It subsequently assessed the applicant’s case file and decided to uphold the revocation decision. The applicant complains of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he further argues that he was not 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 his 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, regarding the specific circumstances of this case, the decision to revoke the applicant’s Dutch nationality accompanied by the necessary procedural safeguards, allowing him 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 that the applicant had an “arguable claim” in respect of his complaint under Article 8, did he have an effective remedy at his disposal to challenge the decision to revoke his Dutch nationality, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?