Information Note on the Court’s case-law 205

March 2017

K2 v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 42387/13

Decision 7.2.2017 [Section I]

Article 8

Positive obligations

Article 8-1

Respect for family life

Respect for private life

Deprivation of citizenship for terrorist-related activities: inadmissible

Facts – The applicant, a naturalised British citizen, left the United Kingdom in breach of his bail conditions after bein g charged with a public-order offence. While he was out of the country, the Secretary of State for the Home Department made an order for him to be deprived of his citizenship on the grounds that such measure would be conducive to the public good. The appli cant was also excluded from the United Kingdom on the ground that he was involved in terrorism-related activities and had links to a number of Islamic extremists. He unsuccessfully challenged both decisions.

In the Convention proceedings, the applicant co mplained that the measures had breached his right to respect for his family and private life. He further complained that there were inadequate procedural safeguards to ensure effective respect for his Article 8 rights as there was very limited disclosure o f the national-security case against him and the exclusion order meant that he was unable to participate effectively in the legal proceedings.

Law – Article 8

(a) Deprivation of citizenship – An arbitrary denial of citizenship might, in certain circumstances, raise an issue under Article 8 because of its impact on the private life of the individual ( Genovese v. Malta , 53124/09, 11 October 2011, Information Note 145 ). The same principles had to apply to the revocation of citizenship already obtained since this might lead to a similar – if not greater – interference with the individual’s right to respect for family and private life ( Ramada n v. Malta , 76136/12, 21 June 2016, Information Note 197 ). In determining whether a revocation of citizenship was in breach of Article 8, two separate issues had to be addressed: whether the revocation was arbitrary (which was a stricter standard than that of proportionality) and what the consequences of revoca tion were for the applicant.

(i) Arbitrariness – In determining arbitrariness, the Court had regard to (i) whether the revocation was in accordance with the law; (ii) whether it was accompanied by the necessary procedural safeguards, including whether the person deprived of citizenship was allowed the opportunity to challenge the decision before courts affording the relevant guarantees; and (iii) whether the authorities had acted diligently and swiftly.

It was not suggested that the decision to deprive the applicant of his citizenship was anything other than “in accordance with the law” and there was no evidence of any failure on the part of the Secretary of State to act diligently and swiftly. As regards the remaining issue, whether the necessary procedura l safeguards had been in place, the Court noted that the applicant had a statutory right of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeal Tribunal (“SIAC”) against the decision to deprive him of citizenship and that the SIAC procedure had been found to afford s ufficient guarantees in I.R. and G.T. v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), 14876/12 and 63339/12, 28 January 2014, Information Note 171 ). As to the applicant’s contention that his exclusion from the United Kingdom had prevented him from participating effectively in his appeal against the decision to deprive him of citizenship, the Court did not accept that an out-of-country appeal necessarily rendered a decision to revoke citizenship “arbitrary”. Article 8 could not be interpreted so as to impose a positive obligation on Contracting States to facilitate the return of every person deprived of citizenship while outside the jurisdiction in order to pursue an appeal against that decision. While the Court did not exclude the possibility that an Article 8 issue might arise where there existed clear and objective evidence that a person was unable to instruct lawyers or give evidence while outside the jurisdiction, it did not consider itself in a positon to call into question the findings of the national courts, which had conducted a comprehensive and thorough examination of the applicant’s submissions, on this point. In addition, SIAC had sought out the most independent and objective evidence in the closed national-s ecurity case and adopted particular caution in drawing inferences adverse to the applicant. Lastly, the Court could not ignore the fact that the reason the applicant had had to conduct his appeal from outside the United Kingdom was not the Secretary of Sta te’s decision to exclude him, but rather his decision to flee the country before he was required to surrender to bail.

The decision to deprive the applicant of his British citizenship was therefore not “arbitrary”.

(ii) Consequences of the revocation – T he applicant was not rendered stateless by the decision to deprive him of his British citizenship as he had obtained a Sudanese passport. Furthermore, he had left the United Kingdom voluntarily prior to the decision to deprive him of his citizenship; his w ife and child were no longer living in the United Kingdom and could freely visit Sudan and even live there if they wished; and the applicant’s own natal family could – and did – visit him “reasonably often”.

Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founde d).

(b) Exclusion from the United Kingdom – In the light of the Court’s findings relating to the consequences of the revocation of the applicant’s citizenship, his exclusion did not appear to have a significant adverse impact on his right to respect for h is family and private life or upon his reputation. Having regard to the limited nature of the interference, and SIAC’s clear findings concerning the extent of his terrorism-related activities, the decision to exclude the applicant from the United Kingdom w as not disproportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the public from the threat of terrorism.

Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).

© 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