Information Note on the Court’s case-law 209
July 2017
Boudelal v. France (dec.) - 14894/14
Decision 13.6.2017 [Section V]
Article 9
Article 9-1
Freedom of thought
Dismissal of alien’s application for citizenship following discretionary assessment of his loyalty to the State: Article 9 not applicable
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Article 11
Article 11-1
Freedom of association
Freedom of peaceful assembly
Facts – The applicant, an Algerian national who was born before his country’s independence and lawfully resident in France since 1967, applied in 2009 for the reinstatement of his French nationality. His application was denied on account of information held on him by the authorities (which described him in particular as the organiser of a pro-Palestinian association regarded as the “local branch [of an organisation] close to the ideology of Hamas”, and he had also relayed the words of a Hamas member during a demonstration). In dismissing his appeal, the Administrative Court of Appeal noted that this information cast doubt on his loyalty to France. The applicant disputed those grounds, which amounted in his view to imposing a sanction for his commitment to an association and to the creation of a “thought-crime”.
Law – Articles 9, 10 and 11: In the Petropavlovskis v. Latvia judgment (44230/06, 13 January 2015, Information Note 181), the Court had emphasised that (i) the choice of criteria for a naturalisation procedure were not in principle subject to any specific rules of international law, and States were free to grant or deny naturalisation requests, and that (ii) while in certain circumstances arbitrary or discriminatory decisions in the area of nationality could raise human rights issues, neither the European Convention nor international law in general provided for a right to acquire a specific nationality.
Differences in context aside, the two cases had similarities:
(a) Like Latvian law, French law did not guarantee aliens an unconditional right to obtain French nationality, but subjected it to the condition of loyalty of the applicant, as assessed by the authorities.
(b) That assessment did not relate to loyalty to the government currently in power, but loyalty to the State.
(c) Safeguards against arbitrariness were ensured by obliging the authorities to give reasons for their refusals and by the availability of judicial remedies (the applicant had been afforded those safeguards).
(d) The refusal in question had not been accompanied by any other measure and was not punitive in nature: the authority had in fact merely noted that one of the criteria under domestic law for naturalisation or reinstatement of French nationality was not satisfied.
(e) The applicant had been able, both before and after the refusal, to express his opinions freely, take part in demonstrations and join the associations of his choosing.
(f) As to the alleged chilling effect of the measure on his exercise of the rights secured by Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention, this allegation was not substantiated (moreover, there was no evidence in the file that he had renounced his commitment to the association or the expression of his opinions following that measure).
Accordingly the Court came to the same conclusion in the present case as in Petropavlovskis: as the applicant had not been prevented from expressing his opinions or from taking part in any gathering or movement, Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention were not applicable.
Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatibility ratione materiae).
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy