Make an enquiry

    Enquiry Form









    Contact

      Enquiry Form






      Supporting Document


      We are welcoming clients back to our offices Find Out More
      FJG Solicitors in Essex, Colchester, Chelmsford, London – Fisher Jones Greenwood
      • 0845 543 5700
      • [email protected]
      • Make an enquiry
      • Online Payment
      • Home
      • Services
        • Services for you
          • Advocacy
          • Civil & Commercial Disputes
          • Clinical and Medical Negligence
          • Conveyancing
          • Employment Law
          • Family Law
          • Children Law
          • Immigration & Visas
          • Notary Services
          • Personal Injury
          • Wills, Life Planning & Probate
        • Services for business
          • Academies Portal
          • Agricultural and Rural
          • Business Immigration
          • Commercial Dispute Resolution
          • Commercial Litigation
          • Professional Negligence
          • Commercial Property
          • Construction Law
          • Planning Consultancy
          • Corporate and Commercial
          • Education Services
          • Employment Law
          • Healthcare Services
          • International Services
          • Landlord & Tenant Services
        • Services by sector
          • Agriculture & Estates
          • Care Homes
          • Charities & Social Enterprise
          • Construction
          • Education Law
          • Energy
          • Family Owned Business
          • Healthcare & Dentistry
      • Our people
      • About us
        • CSR
        • Awards
        • Our Vision
        • Accessibility
        • Careers
        • Work Experience
        • Equality & Diversity
        • FLOCC
        • FJG Foundation
        • SAFE Forum
      • News, Events & Insights
      • Blog
      • Podcasts
      • Contact us
        • Colchester
        • Chelmsford
        • Clacton-on-Sea
        • Billericay
        • Braintree
        • Frinton-on-Sea
        • Holland-on-Sea
        • London

      Deprivation of Nationality and EU Citizenship

      18 February 2015 by Marketing Team

      FJG Marketing

      Many practitioners are concerned about the increasing use of draconian powers to deprive people of their citizenship and the related ‘evil of statelessness’ (which is the subject of the UNCHR’s latest campaign.)

      Recently a 7-member Supreme Court panel heard the latest round of arguments on these issues in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v B2. The appeal comes in the wake of government proposals to limit the right of British Citizens to return to the UK following suspected terrorist activity abroad; This could have profound implications for the government’s approach to ‘British jihadis’.

      Much has been written about the ramifications of the Court of Appeal’s approach to defining ‘statelessness’ for international humanitarian protection. However, it may turn out that the determinative issue before the Supreme Court is not whether ‘B2’ has been made stateless, but when he was made stateless, and whether he can rely on EU law.

      B2 was a Vietnamese national by birth and subsequently acquired British nationality. The Secretary of State made a decision in 2011 to deprive him of his British citizenship because of alleged involvement in terrorist activities. At the date of the Secretary of State’s decision the Vietnamese executive was unaware of B2. However, when given his details by the UK government they declined to recognize his Vietnamese nationality. On appeal, SIAC found that deprivation of B2’s British citizenship had made him stateless and was therefore unlawful under s40 (4) of the British Nationality Act 1981.

      The Court of Appeal decided that the Vietnamese government had acted contrary to Vietnamese law, and that the international definition of statelessness in the 1954 Convention does not include those who lose their nationality in such circumstances. To find B2 ‘de jure’, rather than ‘de facto’ stateless would, in the Court’s view, make UK courts complicit in the Vietnamese executive’s disregard for the rule of law.

      When was B2 made stateless?

      And what happens when the other state has not yet indicated whether he is their national?

      There was significant debate in the Supreme Court over the question of when B2 lost his Vietnamese nationality. The government argued that he lost it when the Vietnamese executive decided he was no longer a national. On their view, the UK revoked his citizenship first, and it was Vietnam who then made him stateless. The Appellant sought to characterise Vietnam’s stance as a clarification of his historic position, arguing that B2 had lost his Vietnamese nationality on acquiring British Citizenship by virtue of a Vietnamese nationality law as interpreted by the executive.

      This dispute may have broader implications for the power to strip citizenship from individuals whose other country of nationality is not aware of them and has little respect for the rule of law or has not signed up to the statelessness Conventions. The Appellant argued that the humanitarian objectives behind the 1954 Convention required the Secretary of State to ask what Vietnam’s view would have been if they were asked before revoking his citizenship. If the government’s argument (which the Court seemed to find attractive) is right, governments could conceal the identity of an individuals in a race to revoke his citizenship, when they know that ultimately he would almost certainly become stateless.

      If the Court accepts the government’s arguments on timing, they could sidestep the definition of statelessness issue altogether. It is to be sincerely hoped however that they do not leave the Court of Appeal’s ruling on the ambit of ‘de jure’ statelessness to stand as their approach would seriously undermine international legal protection. It is normally unlawful to make people stateless – so it is populations in countries with the worst human rights records and the worst rule of law that need most protection. The Open Society Justice Initiative, who intervened in the case, pointed out that, if only “lawful statelessness” counts, it is those people who will have least chance of accessing the protection afforded to stateless people when they are denied citizenship.

      Does EU Law apply?

      Perhaps the most politically sensitive question the court was asked was whether EU law provides rights that can prevent or protect against deprivation of citizenship. (You can imagine the headlines!)

      The principal arguments were about the ambit of EU law itself. The Court of Appeal in G1 held that individuals being deprived of nationality could not rely on EU law where there was no ‘actual attempted or purported exercise of any right conferred by EU law’ – the most obvious of which would be Free Movement Rights.

      In ‘G1: the re-match’ B2 relied on the well-known case of Zambrano, to argue that EU citizenship imports freestanding rights which are not dependent on a cross-border element. Hugh Southey QC argued that it did not matter that B2 was not exercising free movement rights: his right as an EU citizen to exercise them in the future must still be protected. He also relied on Rottman v Friestaat Bayern, in which the CJEU held that deprivation of citizenship comes within the scope of EU law because citizenship of the EU is intended to be a fundamental status.

      Interestingly, the Respondent did not argue that Rottman was wrongly decided, but sought to distinguish the case on the basis that Mr Rottman had been a citizen of another EU member state in the past. The government therefore seems to concede that EU citizenship does import freestanding rights. The argument that exercise membership of an EU state was significant did not seem particularly compelling to the Court.

      If EU law can be relied upon by individuals being stripped of their nationality, they could then benefit from increased procedural safeguards such as enhanced disclosure under ZZ v Secretary of State. Perhaps more importantly, they would also be able invoke proportionality principles. B2 sought to argue that deprivation of nationality is always disproportionate where it would result in statelessness and loss of EU citizenship, particularly where there are less onerous means of addressing national security concerns, such as those under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.

      Given their Lordship’s response to the ‘timing’ arguments and the government’s concession that Rottman was rightly decided, the most likely outcome at this stage seems to be a CJEU reference concerning the ambit of EU law. B2 may therefore be in the UK for a long while yet.

      Should you require further advice on this important issue of deprivation of citizenship, please call our experienced team of lawyers on 01206 835270..

      Authors
      Archives
      Subscribe to RSS feed

      Recent Posts

      • Who you gonna call?
      • Worth the wait
      • What is a section 37 report?
      @FJGSolicitors

      We've had a 5* review from Beau: Excellent communication for a swift Property sale and purchase https://t.co/lVm29tQYYK

      8 hours

      RT @StHelenaHospice: A big thank you to our Wills Month solicitors 😍 @birkettlong @JohnFowlersLLP @FJGSolicitors Also thank you to everyo…

      23 hours

      We've had a 5* review from Stephen: Excellent Sevice https://t.co/q9w1oBRu4H

      1 day
      Billericay 01277 623132
      Braintree 01376 552828
      Chelmsford 01245 890110
      Colchester 01206 835300
      Clacton 01255 323103
      Frinton 01255 514100
      Holland-on-Sea 01255 818900
      London 08455 435700
      Sudbury 01787 373387
      • Disclaimer
      • Accessibility
      • Terms & Conditions
      • Privacy Policy
      • Cookies
      • Price & Service
      • Signup to our Newsletter
      • COVID-19 Risk Assessment

      Fisher Jones Greenwood is the trading name of Fisher Jones Greenwood LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England ( Number: OC305854 ). A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office at Charter Court, Newcomen Way, Colchester Business Park, Colchester, Essex CO4 9YA

      This website uses cookies & data collection

      Our website uses cookies, which are small text files that are placed on your computer by websites that you visit to distinguish you from other users. They are widely used in order to help website owners like us provide you with the best user experience possible. They also provide us with information that can help us improve our websites and marketing activities. By clicking an item or link on this website, you agree to the use of cookies and other data collection.

      Find out more

      We are welcoming clients back to our offices

      Differing tiers and three lockdowns later, Fisher Jones Greenwood Solicitors are now pleased to be able to welcome clients safely back to our offices.

      Remote working and the digitalisation of the way we work, have been key to keeping FJG and the rest of the country going.

      • We are now able to offer, pre-booked face-to-face appointments. Although, we are still able to offer remote appointments if preferred.
      • You can continue to visit our offices at any time to post any correspondence and documents through letterboxes.

      If you are visiting an FJG office, covid-19 safety rules of social distancing, hand sanitization, and the wearing of masks will still apply.

      • Please be aware you will also need to have your temperature taken on arrival.
      • There will also be protective screens in place to protect you and our staff.

      Please do not hesitate to contact your legal adviser by email or by telephone should you have any worries or concerns. Alternatively, please call our main switchboard number (01206 835300), and a message to return your call will be relayed to the relevant person.

      Best wishes
      Paula Cameron
      Managing Partner