Judgment El Aroud and B.S. v. Belgium - applicants' Belgian nationality removed on account of convictions for terrorism-related offences

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 288 (2024)   05.12.2024   Complaint by two dual nationals about the removal of their Belgian nationality   on account of convictions for terrorist offences: no violation of the Convention   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of El Aroud and B.S. v. Belgium (applications nos. 25491/18   and 27629/18) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on   Human Rights.   The case concerned the deprivation of Belgian nationality ordered in respect of two dual nationals   who had been convicted in Belgium on terrorism-related charges.   The Court began by reiterating that terrorist violence was in itself a grave threat to human rights and,   in consequence, that it was legitimate that States should take action in respect of individuals who had   been convicted at final instance of offences which directly undermined the values of the Convention.   It also specified that questions relating to the granting, loss and deprivation of nationality concerned   matters in which the Contracting States had to be afforded wide discretion. It reiterated that, in cases   concerning a deprivation of nationality, it had regard to whether an appropriate judicial review had   been conducted. In the present case, the measures in question had been ordered by the Brussels Court   of Appeal, in judgments in which the reasoning had been relevant and sufficient; in particular, that   court had considered that the actions leading to the applicants’ criminal convictions had shown that   their attachment to Belgium and its values had been of little consequence to them in the construction   of their personal identity. The Court also took account of the fact that the applicants had another   nationality and the decision to deprive them of their Belgian nationality had not had the effect of   rendering them stateless. In consequence, it held that the Belgian authorities had not exceeded their   wide discretion and that the measures in question had been “necessary in a democratic society”.   Principal facts   The applicants, Malika El Aroud – a Moroccan national who was born in 1959 – and B.S. – a Tunisian   national who was born in 1973 –, were five and three years old respectively when they arrived in   Belgium. They acquired Belgian nationality by a declaration of nationality under Article 12bis of the   Belgian Nationality Code (“BNC”) in 2000 and 2001 respectively.   In 2010 Ms El Aroud was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for her role as a leader of a terrorist   organisation, in respect of offences committed between January 2007 and December 2008. She was   specifically convicted of having set up and run a cell with her husband in order to recruit potential   jihadists who could then join al-Qaeda and take part in its terrorist activities. Ms El Aroud served her   sentence and was released in 2016.   In 2008 Mr B.S. was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for his role as a member of a terrorist   organisation, in respect of offences committed between January 2004 and December 2005. He was   convicted, in particular, of having been the leader of a terrorist group by motivating, mentoring and   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any   party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers   whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the   referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   providing financial support to four individuals who had travelled to Iraq to engage in armed jihad.   Mr B.S. served his sentence and was released in 2011.   On various dates, the Principal State Counsel (procureur général) at the Brussels Court of Appeal   lodged applications in respect of both applicants under Article 23 § 1 of the BNC, seeking to have them   deprived of their nationality. Subsequently, in 2017, the Brussels Court of Appeal deprived the   applicants of their Belgian nationality, finding that, in view of the offences for which they had been   convicted, they had both seriously failed in their duties as Belgian citizens. In its decision, the Court of   Appeal noted that both applicants had another nationality. Subsequently, an order for the applicants   to leave the country was issued. The Court has not been informed of the progress of those   proceedings.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants submitted that the   deprivation of their nationality had constituted an unjustified interference with their right to respect   for private life. Ms El Aroud also submitted that her right to family life had been breached, by reference   to the fact that she had an adult daughter and a granddaughter, both of whom were Belgian nationals.   The applicants also complained that they had had no right to an appeal within the meaning of Article 2   of Protocol No. 7.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 and 30 May 2018.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ivana Jelić (Montenegro), President,   Alena Poláčková (Slovakia),   Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Poland),   Georgios A. Serghides (Cyprus),   Erik Wennerström (Sweden),   Raffaele Sabato (Italy),   Frédéric Krenc (Belgium),   and also Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 8   The Court considered that the decision to deprive the applicants of Belgian nationality had constituted   an interference with their right to respect for their private life. It noted that the decision had been   based on Article 23 § 1 of the BNC, which provided that persons who had acquired Belgian nationality   by a declaration could be deprived of it “if they seriously failed in their duties as Belgian citizens”. The   Court considered that that provision had been sufficiently foreseeable. In addition, it acknowledged   that the deprivation of the applicants’ Belgian nationality as a result of their convictions for serious   terrorist offences had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security and preventing   crime.   In that connection, the Court specified that questions relating to the granting, withdrawal and – as in   the present case – deprivation of nationality were matters in which the Contracting States had to be   afforded wide discretion. Furthermore, it reiterated that terrorist violence was in itself a grave threat   to human rights and, in consequence, that it was legitimate that States should take action in respect   of individuals who had been convicted at final instance of offences which directly undermined the   2 values of the Convention. Thus, it had already held on several occasions that measures to deprive   individuals who had committed terrorist offences of their nationality did not violate Article 8.   In the present case, the Court reiterated that, in cases concerning deprivation of nationality, it had   regard to whether appropriate judicial review had been conducted. In view of the interference with   the applicants’ private life and the possible impact of the deprivation of nationality, the Court attached   importance to the fact that in the instant case the measure had been ordered by a court with   jurisdiction to deal with all aspects of the case, the independence of which had not been called into   question. It further noted that the applicants had not disputed that they had been able to defend   themselves before the Court of Appeal in adversarial proceedings, during which they had been   assisted by a lawyer and had been able to submit oral and written observations.   The Court then noted that the Court of Appeal’s judgments had been based on relevant and sufficient   reasons and had duly taken account of the arguments relating to the applicants’ private life. The Court   of Appeal had thus been able to determine that the actions leading to the applicants’ criminal   convictions had shown that their attachment to Belgium and its values had been of little consequence   to them in the construction of their personal identity.   Lastly, the Court noted that both the applicants were nationals of other States, a fact to which it   attached some importance. The decision to deprive them of their Belgian nationality had not therefore   had the effect of rendering them stateless, which was moreover a prerequisite for the application of   Article 23 § 1 of the BNC.   It followed that the Belgian authorities had not exceeded their wide discretion and the measures in   question had been “necessary in a democratic society”. There had therefore been no violation of   Article 8 of the Convention.   Article 2 of Protocol No. 7   The Court noted that the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court had judged deprivation of   nationality to be a civil measure. Furthermore, it reiterated that it had already held that deprivation   of nationality was not a “criminal” measure within the meaning of the Convention. In consequence,   Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 was not applicable in the present case. This part of the application was   therefore declared inadmissible.   The judgment is available only in French.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the   Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X (Twitter)   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3