The case concerns the rejection of an application for re-acquisition of Greek nationality by a woman who voluntarily renounced her nationality following the acquisition of foreign nationality by marriage, in spite of the fact that her husband was allegedly a stateless person of Palestinian origin. The court ruled that the competent authorities had acted legitimately by rejecting the application.
Articles 14§2, 16, 21§1, 22§2, 32 bis of the 1955 Code of Greek citizenship (leg. decree 3370/1955)
The applicant was born in Egypt and was registered by the Greek Consulate of Cairo as a person of Greek origin possessing Greek nationality. In 1960, she married a man of alleged Palestinian nationality and voluntarily renounced Greek nationality, on the basis of the acquisition of the nationality of her husband. A few years later she requested the annulment of the relevant decision, asking to be granted Greek nationality again. Her application was rejected. In 2001, she re-applied to have her Greek nationality restored. Her application, as well as the subsequent administrative appeal against the application, were rejected. While, according to the legislation in force at the time, individuals enrolled in the Consular registries in Egypt and recognised as Greek nationals by the local authorities are considered as being Greek nationals (under art. 32 bis of the 1955 Code of Greek citizenship), in that particular case, the applicant had previously voluntarily renounced her Greek nationality, stating that she had acquired her husband’s nationality, and thus could not be considered eligible to benefit from the relevant provisions.
The applicant requested the annulment of that decision, arguing, inter alia, that the initial decision in relation to the renouncement of her Greek nationality was erroneous, since she had never acquired another nationality by marriage. She argued that her husband, being of Palestinian origin, is in fact stateless, as there is no Palestinian State, and thus, by losing Greek nationality, she was rendered stateless.
The court ruled that the competent authorities had acted legitimately. In particular, the court argued that the claim that the applicant was rendered stateless, as she was unable to acquire any nationality by marriage, having been married to a person of Palestinian origin, is in any case inadmissible, in view of the fact that the applicant had not challenged the relevant administrative acts for several decades, and therefore could not be challenged anymore. Moreover, the court noted that the very fact that she was able at the time to emigrate from Egypt proves that she was, in any case, in possession of some kind of travel document.
The Court rejected the application (dissenting opinion of one member of the court).