CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 novembre 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 } Published on 11 December 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 49532/19 Alexandr Fiodorov ZAICOV against Bulgaria lodged on 16 September 2019 communicated on 20 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the revocation of the applicant’s Bulgarian citizenship. The applicant, who is from Moldova and also holds Moldovan nationality, obtained Bulgarian citizenship in 2009 on the basis of naturalisation. In 2014 he moved with his family to the United Kingdom. In July 2019, when contacting the Bulgarian consulate in London in order to have his Bulgarian passport renewed, the applicant was informed that his naturalisation had been revoked, by means of a decree of the Vice-President of the Republic dated 15   June 2017. The decree had not been subject to judicial or any other review. It had been based on section 22(1) of the Bulgarian Citizenship Act, which provides for such revocation in particular in cases where a person has concealed information which, if known at the time of naturalisation, would have been a bar to it. The applicant has not been informed in more detail of the specific findings in that regard in his case. The applicant complains under Article 8 and Article 13 of the Convention that the decision to revoke his Bulgarian citizenship was arbitrary, and that he could not challenge the findings it was based on. He affirms that he concealed no relevant information when applying for Bulgarian citizenship. He explains furthermore that the loss of his citizenship of a member State of the European Union has rendered difficult his obtaining a permanent residence status in the United Kingdom. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the revocation of the applicant’s Bulgarian citizenship amount to an interference with his right to respect for his private life, as guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention? If so, did such interference meet the requirements of Article 8 (see, among other authorities, Ramadan v. Malta , no. 76136/12, §§ 84-92, 21 June 2016; Ghoumid and Others v. France , nos. 52273/16   and 4 others, §§ 44-52, 26   June 2020; Usmanov v.   Russia , no. 43936/18, §§ 58-70, 22 December 2020)? Was it, as claimed by the applicant, arbitrary, seeing in particular that the applicant was not informed of the factual findings which had led to the revocation, and was not afforded a possibility to challenge it before the domestic courts? 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 Bulgarian nationality, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?