Background

The Administrative Court of Cyprus recently annulled a Council of Ministers decision to deprive an applicant of his Cypriot citizenship acquired by exceptional naturalization under the Civil Registry Law, together with the consequential Deprivation of Citizenship Order issued by the Minister of Interior.

The applicant had been notified of the Council's intention to revoke his citizenship on the basis that he had concealed material information during his naturalization application. He was given the opportunity to submit representations to the Independent Committee for the Examination of Citizenship Deprivation, the body established under the Civil Registry Law to receive objections from affected persons and submit a recommendation to the Council of Ministers. The applicant submitted a detailed letter raising numerous grounds, including that no criminal court proceedings had been pending against him at the material time, and that revocation would render him stateless.

The Court's Decision

The Court identified three connected deficiencies, each bearing on the lawfulness of the decision.

Failure to conduct an adequate investigation: The initial recommendation to the Council of Ministers was to examine the possibility of revocation, not to proceed with it. The Council, however, revoked the applicant's citizenship without any independent inquiry of its own, and subsequently confirmed that decision by confining itself entirely to the Independent Committee's recommendation.

The right to a prior hearing was rendered merely formal: The Independent Committee failed to examine and assess the substance of what the applicant had submitted, in particular his arguments concerning his alleged involvement in the matters attributed to him and whether criminal proceedings were actually pending at the material time. The Court restated the established principle of administrative law, that the substance of the right to a prior hearing lies in establishing the right of the interested party to participate in the administrative procedure, together with the corresponding obligation on the administrative authorities to take his views into account when forming their decision. Providing an opportunity to submit representations that are then not genuinely assessed does not satisfy this requirement.

Statelessness was entirely ignored: The Court identified this as the most serious deficiency. Despite the argument having been explicitly raised and supported with detailed references to international law and CJEU jurisprudence, the consequence that revocation would leave the applicant stateless was not examined or assessed at any stage. On the EU law dimension, the Court applied Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (Case C-135/08), confirming that revocation of citizenship obtained by naturalization must comply with the principle of proportionality, with express regard to the consequences for the person concerned, including the possibility of statelessness.

How We Can Help

At Economou & Co LLC, we have substantial experience advising clients on complex administrative law matters, including citizenship revocation proceedings before the Independent Committee and the Administrative Court. Our team handles the full spectrum of such cases, from the preparation of detailed representations at the Committee stage through to judicial review before the Administrative Court.

Relevant News and Publications:

• Interim Orders in Citizenship Revocation Proceedings: Focused Guide and Recent Legal Developments
• Recent Developments in Revocation of Cyprus Citizenship for Foreign Investors
• Guide to AG Collins' Opinion on Malta's Citizenship by Investment Program: Key Legal Considerations
• A Practical Guide to Administrative Law in Cyprus