The applicants, dual nationals born outside Belgium and later naturalised, were deprived of their Belgian nationality after being convicted of terrorism-related offences. They argued that the deprivation constituted a disproportionate interference with their right to respect for private and family life and that they lacked access to an appellate remedy. The Court found no violation of Article 8 ECHR and declared the Article 2 Protocol No. 7 complaint inadmissible, holding that the measure was foreseeable, pursued legitimate aims, offered adequate procedural safeguards, and did not render the applicants stateless.
Council of Europe instruments
- Article 8 ECHR – Right to respect for private and family life
- Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR (applicability disputed; ultimately found not applicable)
European Union law
- Indirect reference to EU law principles through the Court’s discussion of Rottmann (CJEU) in domestic proceedings (contextual, not applied by ECtHR)
National law (Belgium)
- Belgian Nationality Code (Code de la nationalité belge – CNB):
- Article 23 § 1 (deprivation of nationality for serious failure in duties of a Belgian national)
- Articles 23/1 and 23/2 (contextual reference; not applicable ratione temporis)
The applicants were born in Morocco and Tunisia and arrived in Belgium as young children. They later acquired Belgian nationality by declaration under Article 12bis CNB (acquisition of Belgian nationality by declaration for long-term residents meeting integration and residence requirements).
Both were convicted at final instance for leadership or participation in terrorist organisations in relation to conduct committed between 2004 and 2008.
Relying on Article 23 § 1 CNB, which allows deprivation of Belgian nationality where the person has seriously failed in their duties as a Belgian national, provided the measure does not result in statelessness, the Brussels Court of Appeal ordered the applicants’ deprivation of nationality in November 2017. The Brussels Court of Appeal found that the applicants’ actions constituted a serious failure in their duties as a Belgian nationals. The applicants retained Moroccan and Tunisian nationality respectively.
The applicants subsequently received orders to leave Belgium, although these measures fell outside the scope of the ECtHR’s examination.
The applicants submitted that the removal of their Belgian nationality amounted to an unjustified and disproportionate interference with private life, and in one case also with family life (Article 8 ECHR), given their long-standing connection to Belgium and limited ties to their countries of origin. In particular, one applicant argued that domestic courts failed to consider the fact that Belgian nationality was her predominant nationality and that she no longer had any ties with Morocco.
The applicants further argued that Article 23 § 1 CNB lacked sufficient foreseeability, that the measure was arbitrary, and that the proceedings were excessively delayed. They further claimed that they were denied a right to judicial review by a higher tribunal, contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 7.
The Belgian State argued that Article 23 § 1 CNB constituted a lawful and foreseeable basis for deprivation of nationality, regularly applied to persons convicted of terrorism-related offences. It submitted that the applicants benefited from full procedural safeguards before the Court of Appeal, that the length of proceedings was justified by the referral of related questions to the Constitutional Court, and that the deprivation pursued the legitimate aims of national security and prevention of crime.
The State stressed that the measure did not render the applicants stateless and did not automatically affect their residence rights.
The Court held that deprivation of nationality constituted an interference with private life because it affected the applicants’ identity and long-standing integration in Belgium. It found the measure “foreseeable”, noting that Article 23 § 1 CNB had been consistently interpreted as applying to serious conduct undermining fundamental societal values (§§ 63–65). It accepted that the measure pursued legitimate aims of national security and prevention of crime (§ 67).
The Court emphasised that States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in matters of nationality and that terrorism constitutes “a grave threat to human rights” (§ 70). The Brussels Court of Appeal had conducted a full judicial review and provided “relevant and sufficient reasons”, finding that the applicants’ actions showed a “rupture” between them and the values underpinning Belgian society (§§ 72–73). The Court relied on the key fact that both applicants retained another nationality, avoiding statelessness (§ 74), which the CNB itself prohibits.
Regarding the alleged delays, the Court found that these delay were partly due to the Constitutional Court’s involvement and that they had not disadvantaged the applicants (§ 75–76). It finally confirmed that Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 was not applicable, as deprivation of nationality is not a “criminal” measure (§§ 84–87).
Key Extracts (translated from French into British English):
- The applicants’ conduct “showed that their attachment to Belgium and its values had been of little consequence in the construction of their personal identity” (Brussels Court of Appeal reasoning, summarized at ECtHR §§ 12, 24, 73).
- “The consequence of the revocation of nationality also relates to the loss of an element of the applicant's identity” (§ 59).
- “The applicants were nationals of other States […] the decision had not had the effect of rendering them stateless” (§ 74).
- The authorities “had not exceeded their wide margin of appreciation” (§ 78).
No violation of Article 8 ECHR.
Article 2 Protocol No. 7 complaint declared inadmissible (not applicable).
ECtHR Press Release (05.12.2024) – summarising the judgment (available here, in English)
- ECtHR:
- Ramadan v. Malta (application no. 76136/12), 21 June 2016
- K2 v. United Kingdom (application no. 42387/13), 7 February 2017
- Ghoumid and Others v. France (application no. 52273/16 and 4 others), 16 November 2020
- Johansen v. Denmark (application no. 27801/19), 1 February 2022
- Laraba v. Denmark (application no. 6041/23), 12 July 2023
- Usmanov v. Russia (application no. 43936/18), 22 March 2021
- Slivenko v. Latvia (application no. 48321/99), 9 October 2003
- CJEU:
- Rottmann (C-135/08) – referenced by domestic courts
- Belgian Constitutional Court:
- Judgment No. 122/2015