Revoking Citizenship on Account of Involvement in Acts of Terrorism or Other Serious Crimes (2014)


This Ad-Hoc Query interests in finding out  what is the situation in other  EU Member States  regarding the revoking of citizenship of a person who has being involved in acts of terrorism or other serious crimes.

Download

Ad-Hoc Query on revoking citizenship on account of involvement in acts of aerrorism or other serious crimes (pdf, 337 kB)

Summary

Background


The Migration Department of the Ministry of Interior in Finland is interested in finding out what is the situation in other EU Member States regarding the revoking of citizenship of a person who has being involved in acts of terrorism or other serious crimes.

The questions asked concerned whether (i) the national legislation or practice makes it possible to revoke an acquired citizenship on account of being involved in acts of terrorism or other serious crimes, even if (ii) s/he becomes stateless; (iii) there is any pending legislative amendments which would make such revoking possible or easier; and (iv) there has been or is any ongoing research regarding this issue.

The responses received


Replies were received from 22 EMN NCPs. The reply from the Czech Republic could not be given a wider circulation.

The legislation in 9 countries opens for revocation of a citizenship not acquired by birth when a person has been judged guilty of terrorism or another serious crime. In the case of one country (UK) a citizenship acquired by birth may also be revoked. In none of these countries is it possible to render the person stateless. In 3 countries the revocation can only be made within a limited time period (5 or 10 years) following the acquisition of citizenship, and the serious crime must have been committed before citizenship was granted.

Only the reply from IT signals that such legislation has been proposed, with “virtually no chance of being adopted”. Only the reply from NO signals that the issues involved are being reviewed.

Comments


The replies indicate that for the NO review there are European countries who has experience with this type of legislation. This might have been more helpful, however, if the replies had included information about the number of cases where such revocation has been considered and about their outcomes. However, such information was not requested.

[1] Launched 26 August 2014

Would you like to help us improving the website?

Did you find what you were looking for?