CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 juin 2016

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 197 June 2016 Ramadan v. Malta - 76136/12 Judgment 21.6.2016 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Withdrawal of citizenship following annulment of simulated marriage: no violation Facts – The applicant, who at the time was an Egyptian national, acquired Maltese citizenship by reason of his marriage to a Maltese national in 1993. The marriage was annulled in 1998. The applicant subsequently remarried in Malta a Russian national with whom he had two children, both of whom were Maltese nationals. In 2007 the authorities became aware of the judgment annulling the applicant’s first marriage. His citizenship was subsequently revoked on the ground that that marriage had been simulated since his only reason to marry had been to remain in Malta and acquire Maltese citizenship. Law – Article 8: A loss of a citizenship already acquired or born into could have the same (and possibly a bigger) impact on a person’s private and family life as the denial of recognition of the right to acquire citizenship. Thus, an arbitrary revocation of citizenship could in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of its impact on the private life of the individual. The decision to deprive the applicant of his citizenship had been made in accordance with the law. Moreover, the applicant had had the possibility – of which he availed himself – to defend himself in a procedure which was accompanied by the necessary procedural safeguards. Furthermore, although it could be questioned whether the authorities had acted diligently and swiftly, any delay there may have been had not been to the disadvantage of the applicant, who had continued to benefit from the situation. Furthermore, the applicant was aware that when his marriage was annulled his citizenship could be revoked at any time, and thus that he was in a precarious situation. Finally, the situation complained of came about as a result of the applicant’s fraudulent behaviour and any consequences complained of were to a large extent a result of his own choices and actions. It thus followed that the decision to deprive the applicant of his Maltese citizenship had not been arbitrary. As to the consequences of the impugned measure, the applicant was not threatened with expulsion from Malta. Importantly, while the applicant’s Russian wife lost her exempt-person status, the applicant’s sons had not lost their Maltese citizenship, nor had there been any attempts by the Maltese authorities to deprive them of it in the nine years since the applicant had been deprived of his own Maltese citizenship. The applicant had been able to pursue his business and continued to reside in Malta. Although various possibilities were open to him to regularise his stay in the country, the applicant had taken no steps to do so. As to his claim that he was currently stateless, he had not substantiated his assertion that he had relinquished his Egyptian nationality or demonstrated that he would not be able to re-acquire it if he had. The fact that a foreign national had renounced his or her nationality did not mean in principle that the host State had the obligation to regularise his or her stay in the country. It followed that an assessment of the State’s negative obligations under Article 8 of the Convention was not warranted in the present case, nor did the Court need to assess the State’s positive obligations, given that as the situation stood the applicant run no risk of being deported. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to two). (See also Savoia and Bounegru v.   Italy (dec.), 8407/05 , 11   July 2006; and Genovese v.   Malta , 53124/09, 11   October 2011, Information Note   145 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes