The revocation of an assurance of naturalisation must have due regard to the principle of proportionality where that revocation prevents the person concerned from recovering the citizenship of the Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in a judgment (C-118/20) on Tuesday 18 January.
This judgment follows the case in the main proceedings between the Austrian authorities and an Estonian national who had been living in Austria for several years and had become stateless as a result of an administrative decision. On 11 March 2014, the applicant was assured by the local administration of the Federal State of Lower Austria that she would be granted Austrian nationality, provided that she submitted proof of renunciation of her Estonian nationality within 2 years, which she did in August 2015.
However, in July 2017, the Province of Vienna government administration, which had become competent, decided to reject the application for naturalisation, citing two administrative offences - failure to affix the roadworthiness sticker and driving under the influence of alcohol - as a reason for considering that the person concerned no longer fulfilled the conditions for acquiring Austrian nationality.
When asked whether the issue fell within the scope of EU law, the CJEU ruled. Firstly, it considered that the competent national authorities must verify that the revocation decision, which makes the loss of EU citizenship status final for the person concerned, is compatible with the principle of proportionality with regard to the consequences it entails for the situation of that person.
Furthermore, according to the European judges, it is also up to the Member State of origin not to adopt a final decision on deprivation of nationality without ensuring that this decision only comes into force once the new nationality has actually been acquired.
Furthermore, in the specific case of this Case, the CJEU considers that the “traffic offences, give rise to a mere pecuniary penalty”, are not sufficient to demonstrate that the person poses a “genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society or a threat to public security in Austria”.
See the CJEU judgment: https://bit.ly/33OlDOf (Original version in French by Thomas Mangin)