9. Statelessness, citizenship and residence

Király and Dömötör v. Hungary, § 43, for anti Roma demonstrations not involving violence but rather verbal intimidation and threats; Budinova and Chaprazov v. Bulgaria, §§ 64-68, and Behar and Gutman v. Bulgaria, §§ 68-73 where the applicants, who are of Roma and Jewish origin respectively, were affected by xenophobic statements of a well known politician). In these cases, the Court developed the principle laid down by the Grand Chamber in Aksu v. Turkey [GC], cited above, by setting out the relevant factors by which to assess whether negative public statements about a social group affect the “private life” of an individual member of that group to the point of triggering the application of Article 8 in relation to them. The Court also held the principle of negative stereotyping applicable when it comes to the defamation of former Mauthausen prisoners, who, as survivors of the Holocaust, can be seen as constituting a (heterogeneous) social group (Lewit v. Austria, § 46). 282. In the context of the positive duty to take measures to facilitate family reunification, the Court has pointed out that it is imperative to consider the long-term effects which a permanent separation of a child from her natural mother might have, especially since it could lead to an alienation of the child from her Roma identity (Jansen v. Norway, § 103).

9. Statelessness, citizenship and residence45

283. The right to citizenship has been recognised by the Court, under certain circumstances, as falling under private life (Genovese v. Malta). Although the right to acquire a particular nationality is not guaranteed as such by the Convention, the Court has found that an arbitrary refusal of citizenship may, in certain circumstances, raise an issue under Article 8 by impacting on private life (Karassev v. Finland (dec.); Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC]; Genovese v. Malta). The loss of citizenship that has already been acquired may entail similar – if not greater – interference with the person’s right to respect for his or her private and family life (Ramadan v. Malta, § 85; in the context of terrorism-related activities, see K2 v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 49; Ghoumid and Others v. France, § 43 (with regard to private life); Usmanov v. Russia, §§ 59-62).46 To determine whether such interference breaches Article 8, two separate issues must be addressed: whether the decision to revoke citizenship was arbitrary (a stricter standard than that of proportionality); and what its consequences were for the applicant (Ramadan v. Malta, §§ 86-89; K2 v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 50; Ghoumid and Others v. France, § 44 with regard to the deprivation of nationality on the basis of a conviction for a terrorism offence committed over ten years earlier; Usmanov v. Russia, §§ 63-70). The same principles apply to the refusal of the domestic authorities to issue an applicant with an identity card (Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan, § 45). In this case, the domestic authorities found that the applicant had never acquired Azerbaijani citizenship and was not a citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan in spite of the fact that he had been considered a citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan by various State authorities from 1991 to 2008 and that there was a stamp confirming his Azerbaijani citizenship in his Soviet passport. The denial of citizenship to the applicant was not accompanied by the necessary procedural safeguards and was both arbitrary and in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. 284. Article 8 cannot be construed as guaranteeing, as such, the right to a particular type of residence permit; the choice of permit is in principle a matter for the domestic authorities alone (Kaftailova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], § 51). However, the solution proposed must enable the individual in question to exercise unhindered his right to private and/or family life (B.A.C. v. Greece, § 35; Hoti v. Croatia, § 121). Measures restricting the right to reside in a country may, in certain cas-

45 See the Guide on Immigration. 46 See the Guide on Terrorism.