Amsterdam University Press

Chapter Title: Loss of nationality

Chapter Author(s): Harald Waldrauch

Book Title: Acquisition and Loss of Nationality|Volume 1: Comparative Analyses

Book Subtitle: Policies and Trends in 15 European Countries
Book Editor(s): Rainer Bauböck, Eva Ersbøll, Kees Groenendijk and Harald Waldrauch
Published by: Amsterdam University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt46mw34.9

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Amsterdam University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Acquisition and Loss of Nationality|Volume 1: Comparative Analyses

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 4 Loss of nationality1
Harald Waldrauch

4.1 Renunciation of nationality

Renunciation is the only mode of loss of nationality that exists in all

EU15 states. Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, the Nether-
lands and Sweden even have two or more modes of renunciation for
specific groups of persons or their general rules of renunciation con-
tain clauses for these groups. Below, we will first analyse the rules of
renunciation that apply in the most general circumstances in each state
(section 4.1.1) and, in a second step, we look at rules applying to certain
groups of persons or under special circumstances (section 4.1.2). Both
general and special rules of renunciation have changed little since
1985, especially when compared to many other areas of nationality law.

4.1.1 General rules of renunciation

Voluntary loss of nationality by renunciation is possible in all states.
So, are persons entitled to give up their nationality or are they depen-
dent on some authority’s discretion in this respect? In Austria (L01a),
Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands (L01a), Portugal and the United
Kingdom, renunciation becomes effective ex lege if all conditions – in-
cluding the declaration of renunciation – are met. In the second group
of states, comprising Belgium, Germany (L01a+b), Italy (L01a) and
Spain, the loss does not become effective ex lege but the authorities al-
ways have to grant the release from nationality if the conditions are
met and they have to justify negative decisions. In all states within
these first two groups, the conditions are unambiguous. This is in con-
trast to the remaining states – Denmark, Finland, France (L01a),
Greece (L01a) and Sweden – where authorities have at least some dis-
cretion to refuse the release from nationality. Especially in France and
Greece, it is unclear which criteria, apart from the ones mentioned in
the law (see below), the authorities apply when denying the release.
However, only in Greece do the authorities not have to give reasons for
a refused release from nationality. As we will see in section 4.1.2, there
are certain circumstances, though, under which the authorities in Den-
mark, France, Greece and Sweden cannot deny a release from national-

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
184 HARALD WALDRAUCH

ity. Only the authorities in Finland always have discretion as to whether

to accept the renunciation.
Which material conditions do persons who want to renounce nation-
ality have to meet? The most important requirement in all states is that
the person does not end up stateless. Some states distinguish between per-
sons acquiring another nationality and persons who already hold a sec-
ond nationality. Germany has two different regulations in this context,
one for each group of persons. In Austria (L01a), a foreign nationality
must have already been acquired – the assurance of it being granted is
not enough. Greece (L01a) requires that the applicant for release be
naturalised in a foreign state. The general rule in France (L01a) de-
mands that the target person already hold a foreign nationality. All
other states either require that the person hold or acquire a foreign na-
tionality or simply that the person not end up stateless. Denmark, Fin-
land, Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom allow a declaration
of renunciation before the actual acquisition of a foreign nationality,
but demand that it be acquired within a certain time. Otherwise, the
renunciation does not become effective.
Beyond this main condition, no other requirement is universally pre-
scribed in all states. Firstly, this concerns age requirements: in Belgium,
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and the United
Kingdom persons must have come of age (or be emancipated) in order
to be allowed to renounce nationality. In the Netherlands, though, a se-
parate mode of renunciation is available for minors (see section 4.1.2).
In all other states, minors can also renounce nationality, even if the de-
claration to this end has to be made by the child’s guardian. Residence
abroad is a precondition for renunciation only in Ireland, Italy (L01a)
and Spain (since 1990). However, special rules apply to nationals resid-
ing abroad in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece and Swe-
den, which we analyse in section 4.1.2.
In Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany and Greece, renunciation is
in principle only possible if the target person is not (or no longer) liable
for military service but, in Denmark and Finland, this does not apply to
persons residing abroad. The person’s criminal record or ongoing crim-
inal investigations can be an obstacle to the loss of nationality by renun-
ciation in Austria, Denmark and in Germany (L01a). Some conditions
are applied in only one or two states: in Spain and the United King-
dom, renunciation of nationality is impossible (Spain) or at least can
be refused (United Kingdom) when the country is at war. In Germany,
the person must not be in Germany’s public service, whereas in Portu-
gal the renunciation only becomes effective when it is registered at the
Central Registry Office. In Sweden, the authorities may deny the re-
nunciation of nationals residing in the country if ‘special reasons’ exist,
such as the applicant’s plan to gain an improper advantage in Swedish

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LOSS OF NATIONALITY 185

society, e.g. avoid military obligations. Finally, only five states impose a
fee on persons renouncing their nationality: it is C 51 in Germany, C
131 in total in Portugal (for the declaration of renunciation and for its
registration), about C 175 (£ 120) in the United Kingdom, up to C 196
in Austria (varying from province to province) and as much as C 400
in Finland.

4.1.2 Rules for special cases

As mentioned above, some states have more than one set of rules in
this context. Three types of additional regulation apply: 1) special rules
for nationals residing abroad; 2) rules for persons who acquired their
nationality via a particular mode; 3) other special rules.
1 Six of the states that do not require residence outside the state’s ter-
ritory nevertheless have special provisions for persons with residence
abroad. In Denmark and Sweden, if persons residing abroad do not
end up stateless, their release from nationality is not tied to any
other condition and no longer lies within the authorities’ discretion.
Discretion is also ruled out in France for renunciations by certain
nationals with usual residence abroad. Firstly, this concerns adults
acquiring a foreign nationality, who can make a declaration of re-
nunciation from the date of application for a foreign nationality un-
til one year after its actual acquisition (L01b). Secondly, French na-
tionals domiciled abroad must also be released from nationality if
they have acquired a foreign nationality through marriage (L01f).
Until conscription was abolished in 2001, the only other condition
for these two modes was that target persons under the age of 35
should not (or no longer) have military duties. Nationals of Austria
and Germany, by contrast, must already have lived outside the sta-
te’s territory for some time in order for special rules to apply. Aus-
trian nationals who have had their main residence abroad for at
least five years are released from nationality, even if they have not
yet served in the army and even if criminal procedures are pending
against them (L01b). For German nationals with at least ten years
of residence abroad, renunciation is possible even if they are in
public service and even if they are still liable to military service
(L01b). Lastly, adult Greek nationals residing abroad can be released
from nationality if they have no effective links to Greece anymore
(L01c). Residence abroad is not an explicit condition for a second
special mode of renunciation in Greece, but it is obviously very
likely in practice: persons who have entered the public service of a
foreign state and who have had to accept this state’s nationality in
order to do so may apply for release from Greek nationality (L01b).

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
186 HARALD WALDRAUCH

In both cases, though, the final decision on the release is still at the
discretion of the Greek Minister of the Interior.
2 The second type of special provision, which exists in France, Greece
and Italy, concerns persons who acquired nationality in a particular
way, mainly as children of foreign nationals at birth or during min-
ority. In France, youths can renounce nationality between six
months before and one year after reaching majority if they acquired
nationality at birth abroad by ius sanguinis (mode of acquisition:
A01; mode of loss: L01c), by double ius soli (A02; L01d) or by auto-
matic filial extension as a result of a parent acquiring nationality
(A14; L01e). Besides the main requirement that the person must
have or acquire a foreign nationality, only one additional condition
applies to each of these modes, i.e. that neither parent must have
acquired French nationality during the person’s minority (L01c and
L01d), or that the person was born abroad (L01e). If these condi-
tions are met, the authorities have to grant the release from nation-
ality. In Italy, persons who became nationals by automatic filial ex-
tension (A14) can also renounce their nationality after they have at-
tained their majority, if they hold or acquire a foreign nationality
(L01c). In addition, Italy has a special rule for certain persons who
acquired nationality by adoption as minors (A10a), but whose adop-
tion was revoked after they came of age. These persons can re-
nounce their nationality within one year of their adoption being re-
voked if they have or acquire a foreign nationality (L01b). Greece
also allows persons who became Greek automatically as minors be-
cause their parents were naturalised (A14) to renounce their nation-
ality, but only within one year of coming of age and only if they
hold a foreign nationality (L01d). This is the only mode of renuncia-
tion the Greek Minister of the Interior cannot refuse to accept.
Lastly, Greece also has the only rule2 in this context which is not
targeted at persons who acquired nationality in a particular way at
birth or while minors. Women who acquired nationality ex lege
through marriage to a Greek man before 1984 can be released from
nationality if they have retained their original nationality. But again,
the authorities can reject the release without giving reasons.
3 Finally, there are other special modes of renunciation that target
neither persons residing abroad nor persons who acquired national-
ity in a particular way. Firstly, nationals who acquired a foreign na-
tionality because they were adopted by a foreign national can apply
for release from nationality in Greece if they have reached the age
of majority and have no (further) military obligations in Greece
(L01e). However, as with most modes of renunciation in Greece, ap-
plicants are not entitled to be released from nationality in this case.
The second regulation in this context can be found in the Nether-

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LOSS OF NATIONALITY 187

lands, where minors have been able to renounce nationality by sim-

ple declaration (the parents cannot reject it) since 2003 if both par-
ents are foreign nationals and the minor also holds the parents’ na-
tionality.

4.1.3 Summary
The EU15 states can be grouped into four clusters with respect to the
renunciation of nationality:
– Renunciation is easiest in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
Portugal and the United Kingdom, because it involves the fewest
conditions: no ensuing statelessness in all five states; age of major-
ity in Belgium, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom; the holding
of the parent’s nationality for minors in the Netherlands and the
payment of a fee in Portugal and the United Kingdom. Renuncia-
tion is also easy in these states because the release from nationality
has to be granted or even becomes effective automatically if all con-
ditions are met.
– In Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Sweden, residence abroad is
the main condition – besides the acquisition or possession of a for-
eign nationality and in some cases also reaching the age of majority
– for a renunciation that becomes effective automatically or a re-
lease that has to be granted in all cases. In the two Nordic states in
this group, renunciation is also possible if a domicile in the country
is maintained. However, in this case the release from nationality re-
mains at the authorities’ discretion and is tied to additional condi-
tions.
– The regulations in Austria and Germany provide for an automatic
loss or at least for an entitlement to the release from nationality as
well, but the conditions for it are clearly more demanding than in
the states mentioned above. The conditions are relaxed considerably
only for expatriates after a certain period of residence abroad.
– Finally, the release from nationality in Finland, France and Greece
generally lies within the authorities’ discretion. However, in France,
certain groups of expatriates and persons who acquired nationality
as minors via specific modes are entitled to release from nationality.

4.2 Loss of nationality abroad

4.2.1 Loss due to permanent residence abroad (L02)
The first reason for involuntary loss of nationality we compare is ‘per-
manent residence abroad’. As we will see, ‘permanency’, ‘residence’

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
188 HARALD WALDRAUCH

and ‘abroad’ are defined in different ways in the various EU15 states
and the groups of persons targeted also vary considerably.
Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom do not
have regulations concerning the loss of nationality by any group of na-
tionals in cases of prolonged residence abroad. Nine of the other ten
states can be divided into two groups. One group consists of Belgium,
Denmark, Luxembourg and Sweden, where the regulations only target
persons who not only have their residence abroad, but who were also
born outside the state’s territory. By contrast, the relevant legal rules in
Finland, France, Greece, Ireland and the Netherlands do not distin-
guish between persons born in or outside the country. Spain has three
provisions: one affects only nationals born abroad (L02b), while the
other two target certain nationals irrespective of their country of birth
(L02a+c).

4.2.1.1 Loss by nationals irrespective of their country of birth

We first focus on regulations that do not differentiate with respect to
the target person’s country of birth. We thus do not consider actions to
avoid the loss of nationality, which are summarised in section 4.2.1.3.
The potentially most far-reaching provision can be found in the Nether-
lands. It stipulates that nationals lose their nationality ex lege if they
have been residing outside the country or a Member State of the Eur-
opean Union for ten years after reaching the age of majority, unless
the person is in the Netherlands’ public service or the service of an in-
ternational organisation. The ten-year period is only interrupted by re-
sidence in the EU of at least one year. This means that, in theory, na-
tionality even lapses if the person takes up residence in an EU state
after residence outside the EU for more than nine years!
In Ireland, loss because of residence abroad only affects persons
who are Irish by naturalisation other than on the basis of Irish descent
and associations (acquisition mode A19), except if they are in Ireland’s
public service. The Minister of Justice can withdraw their nationality if
they have had their residence abroad or – in the cases of naturalised
spouses of Irish nationals (A08b) – outside the island of Ireland for se-
ven years without interruption. The Minister is under no legal obliga-
tion to avoid statelessness in this context.
Two modes of loss in Spain target nationals born in or outside the
country. Under the first rule, nationals with permanent residence
abroad automatically lose their Spanish nationality three years after
emancipation if they ‘exclusively use a foreign nationality’ that they ac-
quired before emancipation (L02a). The second rule targets naturalised
Spanish nationals who, for three years, ‘exclusively use the foreign na-
tionality’, which they ‘renounced’3 when naturalising in Spain (L02c).
Residence abroad is not explicitly required for this second mode, but it

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LOSS OF NATIONALITY 189

is more or less impossible to prove the exclusive use of another nation-

ality if the person lives in Spain.
Finnish nationals lose their nationality ex lege upon reaching the age
of 22 if they hold a second nationality and do not have ‘a sufficiently
close connection to Finland’. A close connection is deemed to exist if
the person was born in Finland and is residing there when he or she
turns 22 or if he or she has had residence in Finland or a Nordic coun-
try for at least seven years before that age. As in the Netherlands, na-
tionality may occasionally be lost on the basis of this regulation even if
the person has taken up residence in the country already!
The regulations in France are unique because the period of residence
abroad that may trigger a loss of nationality is much longer than in
any other country. The nationality of persons who are French by origin
through descent from French nationals may be withdrawn by court
judgement, if they have never had their usual residence in France, if
their parents have been residing abroad for at least half a century and
if neither they nor the parents have been considered French nationals
by their entourage or by the French authorities (i.e. they do not have
‘possession d’état’). This implies that the person has never applied for
a passport, has never registered at a consulate or for elections and has
never contacted French authorities in any other way, which would indi-
cate that the person made use of a right as a French national. This pro-
vision is applicable, in principle, even if the person ends up stateless,
but this is unlikely to occur. The court can also decide that the parents
have lost nationality and that the target person has never actually been
French.
Finally, Greece is a special case in this context. Currently, no legal
rules are in force in Greece that provide for loss simply because of resi-
dence abroad: a regulation of this kind was abolished in 1998 (see sec-
tion 4.2.1.6). However, another provision exists which was classified as
an example of loss due to a violation of the state’s basic interests (L07),
but which is dependent on the target person residing abroad. Under
this rule, withdrawal of nationality is permitted if persons act against
Greek interests or commit actions incompatible with their Greek na-
tionality while residing abroad (for whatever duration). Authorities
have full discretion in defining which acts are relevant in this context
and they are also not obliged to prevent the occurrence of statelessness
when making use of this provision.

4.2.1.2 Loss by nationals born outside the state’s territory

The regulations in Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and Sweden, as
well as one regulation in Spain (L02b), only provide for loss of nation-
ality by certain nationals born abroad. In all five cases, the loss occurs
ex lege upon reaching a particular age if the target persons have spent

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
190 HARALD WALDRAUCH

certain periods of time abroad, but only if they do not end up stateless.
Furthermore, the law in all five states includes fairly simple procedures
to avert the lapse (see section 4.2.1.3).
In Belgium, Belgian nationality lapses for foreign-born nationals at
the age of 28 if they have been resident abroad uninterruptedly since
the age of eighteen. The regulation in Luxembourg is very similar, ex-
cept for the time that has to be spent abroad: nationals born abroad
lose their nationality upon reaching the age of 38 if they have had their
residence abroad uninterruptedly since the age of eighteen. Being in
the state’s public service or certain equivalent services abroad does not
lead to the loss of nationality in either state.
The basic principles of the Danish and Swedish rules are more or
less the same. Nationals of these countries who were born abroad lose
their nationality ex lege at the age of 22 if they have neither resided in
Denmark/Sweden nor stayed there under circumstances indicating a
special link or affiliation with the country. As in Denmark, examples of
such a special link or affiliation can include a stay because of a long-
term study programme, frequent vacations, or to fulfil military service.
In both states, residence in another Nordic country for at least seven
years is regarded as equal to having had residence in the respective
country at some point in the past.
Lastly, under a special regulation in Spain, persons who acquired na-
tionality on the basis of ius sanguinis by birth abroad (A01) to na-
tionals who were themselves born abroad lose nationality automatically
three years after emancipation if they are nationals of the foreign state
in which they reside (L02b).

4.2.1.3 Actions to prevent the loss of nationality

Apart from taking up residence in the respective country, what actions
can people take in order to prevent a loss of nationality via the modes
described? In fact, certain actions to prevent loss are possible in all
states and they are mostly not very intricate.
The legal rule in the Netherlands loses much of its edge with the
qualification that nationality does not lapse if the target person ac-
quires a declaration of possession of Dutch nationality or a Dutch pass-
port every ten years. The measures to prevent a withdrawal of national-
ity are more demanding for naturalised nationals in Ireland after seven
years of residence abroad. They can prevent this lapse by an annual re-
gistration of their name and a declaration of their will to retain nation-
ality at a consulate. By contrast, actions to prevent the lapse of national-
ity in Spain because of the ‘exclusive use of another nationality’ (L02a
+c) are manifold: people can, for example, cite the fact that they vote
from abroad, use a Spanish passport or appear before a Spanish consu-
late. A loss of nationality by a person born abroad to a Spanish person

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LOSS OF NATIONALITY 191

born abroad three years after emancipation (L02b), by contrast, can be

avoided by making a simple declaration of one’s will to retain national-
ity at a civil or consular registry within the three years of emancipation.
A simple declaration of one’s will to retain nationality is also sufficient
in Belgium and Luxembourg to avoid this loss. It has to be made be-
tween the ages of eighteen and 28 (Belgium) or 38 (Luxembourg) and
subsequently every ten (Belgium) or twenty (Luxembourg) years at a lo-
cal civil registry or a consular mission abroad.
In Finland, nationals who do not meet any of the two residence re-
quirements either have to submit a written statement to a Finnish dip-
lomatic or consular mission or to their local registry office concerning
their wish to retain Finnish nationality. Other ways to avoid loss are to
have been issued a Finnish passport or to have completed military or
alternative civil service in Finland. In the other two Nordic states, target
persons wishing to retain nationality have to apply for permission to
this effect before their 224 birthday. In Denmark, applicants in practice
have to specify their connection to Denmark and possibly demonstrate
their knowledge of the Danish language. On the other hand, in Swe-
den, applications by the first generation born abroad generally seem to
be approved, whereas the second generation has to prove its connec-
tions to the country.
In France, the condition for loss that the target person must not have
‘possession d’état’ implies that the action to prevent the loss is simply
to obtain a certificate of French nationality. Finally, in Greece, the law
does not contain any provisions concerning possible actions to prevent
the loss of nationality via mode L07.

4.2.1.4 Authorities’ information duties and possibilities of appeal

Most states should have registers containing information on at least
some of their nationals living abroad. Nevertheless, the duties of the
authorities to inform persons of an imminent loss of nationality ex
ante or a loss that has already taken place are lacking in Belgium, Den-
mark, Spain, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden,
which is rather alarming. Frequent complaints about this have only led
to a facilitation of reacquisition in Belgium. By contrast, in Finland,
the Directorate of Immigration informs persons about the risk of los-
ing their nationality and procedures to retain it. In Ireland, the Minis-
ter of Justice must notify the persons concerned of its intention to re-
voke the naturalisation certificate. Also, in France, the judge in charge
of the withdrawal must inform the person concerned about the com-
mencement of a procedure.
Possibilities for appeal of some kind against the loss of nationality or
the decision not to grant permission to retain nationality exist in all
states except Belgium. However, in Belgium, target persons may at

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
192 HARALD WALDRAUCH

least ask a court to relieve them from the consequences of not having
made a declaration of their will to retain nationality if they can prove
that they could not make that declaration before the age of 28 because
of force majeure.

4.2.1.5 Relevance in practice

Do the regulations described have any relevance in practice? In particu-
lar, do the authorities make regular checks as to whether the national-
ity of certain nationals has lapsed or should be withdrawn?
In Denmark and Sweden, the authorities do not perform regular
checks on whether nationality has lapsed. The issue comes up when
expatriates apply for a new passport or for retention of nationality be-
fore the age of 22. Regular checks do not appear to be carried out in
France or Ireland either. In Spain, none of the three modes of loss is
very relevant in practice because no regular checks are carried out and
because many facts can be presented to prove that a person was not
making ‘exclusive use of a foreign nationality’ (L02a+c). In Belgium,
according to the Foreign Ministry, the loss of nationality by persons
born and residing abroad is one of the most important modes of loss,
but statistics are lacking. As mentioned, the authorities in Finland reg-
ularly collect information from the population information system on
persons who are multiple nationals and who have to be informed about
an imminent loss. The Greek authorities still check regularly whether
certain nationals living abroad should be deprived of their nationality.
As indicated above, this mode (L07) was used by the authorities to
withdraw nationality from politically undesirable persons residing
abroad, especially activists for the rights of the Macedonian and Turk-
ish minorities in Greece. Finally, no information on the practical rele-
vance of this mode of loss of nationality is available for Luxembourg or
the Netherlands.

4.2.1.6 Changes since 1985

Finally, we turn to reforms since 1985. The six states with no current
rules concerning loss of nationality because of permanent residence
abroad have also had no regulations of this sort in force at any time
over the past twenty years. No changes, at least none that deal with the
modes’ main principles, have taken place in Belgium or Luxembourg
either.
In four states, the rules for loss by those permanently resident
abroad have been tightened. This is especially true for Spain, where
one mode (L02a) was only introduced in 1990 and the other two
(L02b+c) in 2002. The only improvement was the introduction of the
possibility of retaining nationality by declaration by persons targeted by
mode L02a. In the Netherlands, before April 2003, nationality was lost

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LOSS OF NATIONALITY 193

ex lege only if a person had resided abroad for ten years in the country
where he or she was born and where he or she was also a national. By
contrast, the new rule now in force applies to native-born nationals and
to persons residing in any country outside the European Union as well.
Additionally, whereas any residence in the country constituted an inter-
ruption to the period of ten years of residence abroad, this is now the
case only for periods of at least one year of residence. Besides the fact
that residence in other EU states is regarded as equal to residence in
the Netherlands, the only other liberalisation in 2003 concerned the
possibility of retaining nationality by obtaining a passport or equivalent
document.
Finland also tightened its regulations with a reform that came into
force in June 2003. Before that reform, automatic loss of nationality at
the age of 22 was prevented if at any time in the past the person had
been resident in Finland. No minimum duration was required for that
residence. The actions to prevent loss were merely made less demand-
ing: whereas, a declaration, the issue of a passport or military service is
now sufficient, before the reform, a person had to apply to the Directo-
rate of Immigration for permission to retain his or her nationality and
had to prove a connection to Finland in that application (as is still the
case in Denmark and Sweden). A fourth country, Ireland, also tigh-
tened its rules, where these were not made applicable to persons who
were naturalised as spouses of nationals until 2001.
Amendments that mitigated the respective rules have been imple-
mented in three states. In Denmark and Sweden, the rule that nation-
ality can only be lost if the person does not become stateless was only
introduced in 1999 and 2001 respectively. Most importantly, Greece
abolished a regulation in 1998 after severe international criticism.5 Un-
der this regulation, the Greek authorities could deprive nationals not of
Greek Orthodox descent (‘allogenis’) of their nationality if they aban-
doned Greek territory ‘with no intention to return’ (the interpretation
of which was up to the authorities), even if they became stateless (L02)
as a result. This regulation was also used extensively to withdraw na-
tionality from politically undesirable persons, especially members of
ethnic minorities. Even though residence abroad was a condition pre-
scribed by law, withdrawal frequently occurred while the persons still
resided in Greece. The persons affected did not even have to be in-
formed of the imminent withdrawal and there was no action to prevent
the withdrawal from taking place.

4.2.2 Loss due to entry into the service of a foreign state (L03, L04)
Currently, six EU15 states provide for the loss of nationality (mainly by
withdrawal) by a national who enters the public service of a foreign

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
194 HARALD WALDRAUCH

state (L04): Austria, France, Greece and Italy simply speak of (public)
service for a foreign state; in Luxembourg, the ‘offence’ is the fulfil-
ment of ‘national duties’ for a foreign state and in Spain loss is trig-
gered by the exercise of a political office abroad.6 However, the loss is
tied to additional conditions in all states. In Austria, the authorities only
withdraw nationality if they consider being in the public service of a
foreign state as ‘substantially damaging the interests and reputation of
the Republic’.7 In Luxembourg, this mode of loss can only affect per-
sons who are not nationals by birth. Furthermore, in France, Greece,
Italy and Spain, the loss only becomes effective after the government
or a ministry has asked the person to resign from the respective posi-
tion and the person has refused to do so. In these four states, the per-
sons affected therefore find out about the danger of losing their nation-
ality and, in Luxembourg, the persons concerned also have to be noti-
fied of a procedure to withdraw nationality. This is in contrast to
Austria, where nationals only have to be informed that their nationality
has been withdrawn ex post. Last but not least, it should be stressed
that, except in France – and then only since 1998 – persons may lose
nationality via this mode in principle even if they end up stateless!
In France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain, the same regula-
tions can also be applied to service in a foreign army, or this reason for
loss may even be mentioned explicitly (L03). However, three other
states have special provisions that explicitly target military service in a
foreign state. Austria’s nationality law contains the rule that Austrians
lose their nationality ex lege upon entering the military service of a for-
eign state voluntarily, even if they end up stateless. ‘Voluntarily’ does
not cover compulsory service in a state where the person also holds na-
tionality. The rules in Germany and the Netherlands, which were intro-
duced only in 2000 and 2003 respectively, provide for an automatic
loss of nationality in the event of voluntary military service in a foreign
state as well. However, in both states, the loss can only occur if the per-
son is a multiple national. In addition, in Germany, the loss does not
take place if the service in a foreign army was permitted by the Minis-
try of Defence and, in the Netherlands, only service in the army of a
hostile foreign state is relevant. The regulations in all three states are
stricter than those of France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain,
however, because the persons concerned do not have to be warned
about the imminent loss – the loss becomes effective ex lege if the con-
ditions are met.

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LOSS OF NATIONALITY 195

4.3 Loss of nationality in or outside the respective country

4.3.1 Loss due to acquisition of a foreign nationality (L05)
Besides the condition of losing a foreign nationality when becoming a
national of the respective state, the second measure to prevent the oc-
currence of multiple nationality is the provision of loss of nationality
when acquiring a foreign nationality. It is interesting to note that
while, at the end of 2004, only Austria, Denmark, Germany, Luxem-
bourg and the Netherlands still required most or (at least in principle)
all persons wanting to acquire their nationality effectively to lose a for-
eign nationality (see Chapter 3, section 3.2.1.2), more than twice as
many states have provisions regarding the loss of nationality if a for-
eign nationality is acquired. This means, in particular, that even
though persons who acquire nationality by naturalisation or declaration
in Belgium, Greece, Ireland and Spain8 do not have to lose their pre-
vious nationality, nationals of these states who acquire a foreign nation-
ality may lose it under certain circumstances! Several bills have been
introduced in parliament in Belgium recently that allow Belgians to re-
tain their nationality even if they acquire a foreign nationality volunta-
rily.
Only Portugal and the United Kingdom either have never had rules
concerning the loss of nationality upon acquisition of a foreign one or
abolished them decades ago. Until recently, Sweden and Finland pro-
vided for the lapse of nationality if a foreign nationality was acquired
voluntarily but, since mid-2001 (Sweden) and mid-2003 (Finland), they
have accepted the occurrence of multiple nationality in all cases. The
other eleven states either have rules that target nationals acquiring a
foreign nationality in general or only the adults among them (see sec-
tion 4.3.1.1), while five states have additional rules aimed at minors
(see section 4.3.1.2). All of these rules are summarised in Table 4.1.

4.3.1.1 Rules targeted at adults or others, irrespective of their age

The regulations in Austria (L05a), Denmark (L05a+b), Germany (L05a),
Greece and Ireland do not differentiate with respect to the target per-
son’s age, while the general rules in Belgium (L05a), France, Italy, Lux-
embourg (L05a), the Netherlands (L05a and L05d) and Spain apply to
adults only. In nine of the eleven states, nationality lapses automatically
if all the conditions prescribed by law are met. Only the laws in Greece
and Ireland provide for a loss by withdrawal by the Minister of the In-
terior (Greece) or the Minister of Justice (Ireland). However, the rules
in France and Italy (as well as special rules introduced in the Nether-
lands in 2003: L05d) only apply to nationals who acquire the national-
ity of certain states that ratified the 1963 Strasbourg Convention on Re-
duction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and Military Obligations in

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
196 HARALD WALDRAUCH

Cases of Multiple Nationality. Most parties to this Convention are EU15

states. Since the rates of acquisition of nationality of EU15 nationals
are low in practically all EU15 states (see Chapter 6), these provisions
in France and Italy are of limited practical relevance.
For most of these modes, the loss of nationality is limited to cases in
which a foreign nationality is acquired voluntarily. This is true for Aus-
tria, Belgium, Germany (L05a), Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg (L05a)
and Spain, as well as the Netherlands for the general mode (L05a).
However, the definition of ‘voluntary’ is only clear for some states. In
Austria and Belgium, the acquisition of a foreign nationality that is the
indirect consequence of another act – such as marriage, starting a cer-
tain job, or even establishing residence - does not lead to the lapse of
nationality. In Austria, failure to raise an objection to an otherwise
automatic acquisition of a foreign nationality does not have this effect
either. Additionally, in Ireland, the law explicitly stipulates that nation-
ality is only lost if the foreign nationality is acquired ‘by any voluntary
act other than marriage’. By contrast, Denmark provides for the loss of
Danish nationality both if acquisition is voluntary (L05a) and if it is the
indirect consequence of entering the public service of another state
(L05b). The rules in France, Italy and the Netherlands (L05d) for per-
sons acquiring the nationality of states that ratified the 1963 Stras-
bourg Convention in principle cover all forms of acquisition of a for-
eign nationality after birth. However, on the basis of the Second Proto-
col to the Convention from 1993, nationals of these three states no
longer lose nationality upon acquisition of the nationality of any of the
other three states if the person concerned is a spouse of a national of
that other state, a second generation immigrant or a child acquiring
nationality as a result of his or her parents becoming nationals.
With the exception of actions to prevent the loss of nationality (see
further below), are there any exemptions from the loss of nationality or
further conditions for it? In three states, the country of residence is rele-
vant (or was until recently). Before 2000, the main condition for the
lapse of nationality in cases of voluntary acquisition of a foreign nation-
ality in Germany was that the person resided abroad. This ‘Inlandsklau-
sel’ was used by many immigrants in Germany to reacquire their pre-
vious nationality, which they had to renounce before naturalisation in
Germany. To stop the ‘abuse’ of this regulation, it was changed in
1999. Since then, German nationality is lost upon acquisition of a for-
eign nationality even if a domicile in Germany is maintained. By con-
trast, in Italy, nationals who acquire the nationality of certain states
that ratified the 1963 Strasbourg Convention still only lose their nation-
ality ex lege if they also reside in that state. This requirement does not
exist in France. In Spain, the loss of nationality becomes effective only
three years after the foreign nationality was acquired, but only if the

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LOSS OF NATIONALITY 197

Table 4.1 Loss of nationality due to acquisition of a foreign nationality (L05): overview of rules
in force in early 2005
Target person is a minor Target person is an adult
AUT L05a: Lapse if TP acquires C3N by application, declaration or explicit expression
of consent. APLN: application for permission to retain nationality
L05b: Lapse if parent loses nationality –
via mode L05a, TP is unmarried child
from marriage or born out of wedlock
and custodian has agreed to acquisi-
tion.
BEL · L05b: Lapse if TP’s parent loses na- L05a: Lapse if TP acquires C3N volun-
tionality due to renunciation or vo- tarily on basis of formal legal act
luntary acquisition of C3N and TP which was aimed at this acquisition.
holds that nationality or acquires it. APLN: None
APLN: None.
· L05c: Lapse if TP is adopted by C3N
and he or she holds his or her na-
tionality or acquires it. APLN: None.
For L05b+c: no lapse if other parent
with custody is still C1 national
DEN Lapse if TP acquires C3N by application or explicit consent (L05a) or by entering
the public service of another state (L05b). APLN for both: None
L05c: Lapse if parent loses nationality –
via L05a or L05b, unless other parent
with custody is C1 national
FIN No (since 06/2003)
FRA No Lapse if TP acquires C3N of state that
ratified Strasbourg Convention. Cer-
tain exceptions for spouses of na-
tionals and 2nd generation. APLN:
None
GER L05b: Lapse if TP acquires C3N by L05a: Lapse if TP acquires C3N by ap-
adoption, unless the other parent is plication. APLN: application for per-
still C1 national. APLN: None mission to retain nationality
GRE Withdrawal possible if TP voluntarily acquires C3N. APLN: None
IRE Withdrawal possible if naturalised TP acquires C3N by voluntary act other than
marriage. APLN: TP may apply to refer the case to the Committee of Inquiry for
an inquiry on the reasons for the revocation
ITA No Lapse if TP resides in and acquires
C3N of state that has ratified Stras-
bourg Convention. Certain exceptions
for spouses of nationals and 2nd gen-
eration. APLN: None

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
198 HARALD WALDRAUCH

Target person is a minor Target person is an adult

LUX · L05b: Lapse if TP’s parent loses na- L05a: Lapse if TP voluntarily acquires
tionality due to renunciation or vo- C3N. APLN: None
luntary acquisition of C3N and TP
holds or acquires that nationality.
APLN: None.
· L05c: Lapse if TP acquires C3N by
adoption, unless other parent with
custody is C1 national. APLN:
None
NED · L05b: Lapse if TP acquires C3N by · L05a: Lapse if TP acquires C3N vo-
determination of paternity, recogni- luntarily, unless TP is born and lives
tion, adoption. APLN: None. in state of C3N, or resided there for
· Lapse if TP acquires C3N of his or 5 years before majority, or is married
her parent autonomously (L05c) or to national of this state. APLN:
together with that parent if acquisi- None.
tion is voluntary (L05e). APLN: · L05d: Lapse if TP acquires national-
None. ity of state that ratified Strasbourg
L05b+c+e: no loss if other parent is Convention. Certain exceptions for
national, or TP is born and lives in spouses of nationals and 2nd gen-
state of C3N, or has resided there for eration. APLN: None
5 years, or is national by double ius
soli (A02)
SPA No Lapse 3 years after voluntary acquisi-
tion of C3N (exc. Latin American
states, AND, POR, PHIL, Equatorial
Guinea) if TP resides abroad, but not
if Spain is at war. APLN: declaration
of will to retain nationality
SWE No (since 07/2001) No (since 07/2001)
Notes: C1 national = national of respective state; C3N = foreign national(ity); codes
L05a-L05e = ID of mode of loss/acquisition; TP = target person; APLN = action to prevent
loss of nationality.
German mode L05b is not explicitly targeted only at minors, but it is mainly relevant for
them.
States not listed in this table do not have (and since 1985 have not had) respective rules.

person resides abroad. However, no lapse occurs for persons acquiring

the nationality of Latin American and some other states.
No other condition is applied in more than one state. In Ireland, loss
in cases of residence abroad only applies to persons who acquired Irish
nationality by naturalisation. Persons who are Irish through birth on
the island of Ireland or by descent are not affected by it. Since April
2003, nationality is no longer lost via the general mode in the Nether-
lands (L05a) by persons who were born and live on the territory of the
foreign state of which they acquire the nationality, by persons who had
held their main residence in the respective foreign country for five
years before reaching majority, or by persons who are married to a na-

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LOSS OF NATIONALITY 199

tional of the state of which they acquire nationality. In Austria, an addi-

tional requirement concerns minors aged fourteen and over, for whom
the loss becomes effective only if they have given their explicit consent
to the acquisition of the foreign nationality.
The laws of only four states give people the chance to take certain ac-
tions to avoid the loss of nationality. The weakest of the four countermea-
sures exists in Ireland, where persons whose nationality is to be with-
drawn can ask the Minister of Justice to transfer their case to the Com-
mittee of Inquiry to examine the reasons for the revocation. However,
the final decision still lies within the Minister’s discretion. This feeble
measure contrasts with that in Spain where, since 2002, the lapse of
nationality can be prevented by a simple declaration of one’s will to re-
tain nationality within three years of acquiring a foreign nationality.
Austria and Germany (L05a) allow people to apply for permission to re-
tain nationality before a foreign nationality is acquired. The granting of
this permission in Germany lies within the discretion of the authori-
ties, which have to balance public and individual interests. Applicants
in Austria have a right to be granted permission to retain Austrian na-
tionality but the conditions for this are extensive and formulated in a
very vague manner. This is more or less equivalent to the authorities
having discretion in this respect. The permission must be granted if
the foreign state agrees to the retention, if the person meets certain
personal integrity criteria and if one of three additional conditions is
met; these are that retaining nationality must be in Austria’s interest
because of the person’s past and expected achievements, that the per-
son has ‘specifically relevant reasons’, or – since 1999 – that the per-
son is an Austrian national by descent and has ‘specifically relevant
reasons’ in his or her private or family life.
It must be added that the relevance of all these regulations hinges
on whether the responsible authorities become aware that a foreign na-
tionality has been acquired. It can be assumed that in many cases the
authorities have no knowledge of it, especially if the person is careful
not to give any hints. In most cases, therefore, the respective country’s
authorities only find out about the acquisition of a foreign state’s na-
tionality by chance. An exchange of information between states about
their nationals acquiring nationality is provided for in the Additional
Protocol to the 1963 Strasbourg Convention dated November 1977,
which has been in force since 1983. However, only Belgium, Luxem-
bourg, the Netherlands and Norway have ratified this protocol so far.
Since nationals from EEA states rarely acquire the nationality of an-
other EEA state (see Chapter 6), however, this Protocol is of rather lim-
ited relevance in practice.

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
200 HARALD WALDRAUCH

4.3.1.2 Rules targeted at minors

Only Austria, Denmark and the Benelux states have rules concerning
the lapse of nationality upon acquisition of a foreign nationality that
only apply to minors. In all cases, loss is limited to certain types of ac-
quisition of a foreign nationality and it is also dependent on the child
ultimately acquiring the same nationality as the parent. In Austria,
minors lose nationality not only if they acquire a foreign nationality vo-
luntarily (L05a: see above), but also if they acquire it ex lege (or would
acquire it, if they did not hold it already) as a result of the acquisition
of a foreign nationality by a parent who has custody of the child
(L05b=L11). In Denmark, where children also fall under the general
rules (L05a+b: see above), the loss also extends to minor children if a
parent loses Danish nationality due to acquisition of a foreign national-
ity (L05c=L11a). In Belgium and Luxembourg, minors lose nationality
if they acquire (or already hold) a parent’s foreign nationality as a result
of a parent losing nationality by renunciation or voluntary acquisition
of a foreign nationality (L05b=L11), or if they are adopted by a foreign
national and thereby acquire this person’s nationality (L05c). The Neth-
erlands has the longest list of types of acquisition of a foreign national-
ity by minors that can trigger a loss of nationality. Dutch nationality is
lost by children upon acquisition of a foreign nationality by legal deter-
mination of paternity, acknowledgement or adoption (L05b), autono-
mous acquisition of the parent’s nationality (L05c) or simultaneous ac-
quisition together with a parent if the parent acquires the foreign na-
tionality voluntarily (L05e=L11a).
All these modes of loss are dependent on one important additional
condition. If both (adoptive) parents have custody of the child, both of
them must be foreign nationals. In addition, the Netherlands (as the
state with the longest list of types of acquisition of a foreign nationality
that lead to the loss of nationality) also has the longest list of exemp-
tions from the general rules. All Dutch modes of loss targeted at min-
ors are not applicable to children born and with residence in the for-
eign state of which they acquire nationality, to minors who have had
their main residence in the respective country uninterruptedly for five
years, or to children who are Dutch on the basis of the double ius soli
regulation (acquisition mode A02).
Finally, we have to mention the rule in Germany under which a per-
son loses nationality if he or she acquires a foreign nationality by adop-
tion, unless the other parent is still a German national (L05b). Strictly
speaking, this rule does not apply only to minors but, in practice, min-
ors are affected by this rule in the overwhelming majority of cases
(even exclusively).

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LOSS OF NATIONALITY 201

4.3.2 Loss after a forced choice between two nationalities (L06)

In this section, we look at provisions that force multiple nationals to
opt for one of their nationalities at some point in their life and that
provide for the loss of the nationality which was not chosen. In con-
trast to the rules described in the previous section, which stipulate that
nationality is lost as soon as a foreign nationality is acquired, the regu-
lations analysed here accept multiple nationality for a certain period of
time and only later force persons to choose one of their nationalities.
Basically, only the rules in Germany fully meet the general definition
for this mode of loss of nationality. The only other state’s nationality
law addressing the choice between two or more nationalities at a cer-
tain point in the life of a multiple national is Luxembourg. However,
Luxembourg’s law does not itself force multiple nationals to opt for one
of their nationalities. It only stipulates that if an adult national is com-
pelled by his or her other state of nationality to opt for one nationality,
then Luxemburgish nationality lapses if the person opts for the foreign
nationality. The respective German mode of loss was introduced with
the 1999 reform. The regulation stipulates that multiple nationals who
acquired German nationality by ius soli at birth (acquisition mode
A02) or while under the age of ten on the basis of the transitional enti-
tlement to naturalisation in 2000 (A05) are obliged to choose between
their two (or more) nationalities after coming of age. If they declare
their intention to retain the foreign nationality or do not make a de-
claration before the age of 23, German nationality is lost ex lege. It is
only retained if the foreign nationality is renounced or otherwise lost
before the age of 23, or if the person has been granted permission to
retain German nationality alongside a foreign one. The application for
this permission has to be made before a person’s 21st birthday and it
must be granted if the renunciation or loss of the foreign nationality is
impossible or unreasonable, or if multiple nationality was accepted
upon naturalisation. As a result of its age limits, this mode of loss of
nationality will become relevant at the earliest in 2008 for persons
who made use of the transitional entitlement to naturalisation (A05)
and in 2018 for those who are Germans by ius soli at birth (A02).

4.3.3 Loss due to false information or other types of fraud in a procedure of

acquisition of nationality (L09)
One important reason for the loss of nationality is that a person has ac-
quired it (mostly after birth) by fraud, especially by giving false or in-
complete information. Together with the reason discussed in the next
section, false information and other forms of fraud are reasons that in
some states do not, in strictly legal terms, lead to a loss of nationality,

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
202 HARALD WALDRAUCH

but rather to a nullification of the acquisition. For comparative purposes,

we nevertheless treat a nullification of acquisition as a loss of national-
ity. The decisive factor from a comparative point of view is that in all
three cases – withdrawal or lapse and nullification of acquisition – a
person who for some time has been treated as a national by the public
authorities is deprived of this status. The legal consequences of these
forms of loss of nationality, however, may be different, especially with
respect to acts performed during the time the person was deemed a na-
tional.
The laws in all states except Greece, Italy and Sweden include regu-
lations concerning the loss of nationality on the grounds of false infor-
mation or other forms of fraud. The loss occurs by withdrawal in Den-
mark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Nether-
lands and the United Kingdom, and by nullification of the acquisition
in Austria, Belgium, Portugal and Spain. In Austria, Belgium and Ger-
many, these regulations are not contained in the nationality laws or ex-
ecutive decrees themselves, but the withdrawal/nullification is possible
on the basis of general laws regulating administrative procedures.
False information and other forms of fraud as grounds for loss of na-
tionality have been on the political agenda in many EU15 states re-
cently. The relevant rules were introduced in Denmark in 2002 and in
Finland and the Netherlands in 2003. Significant cases in which na-
tionality was withdrawn for this reason were decided by the Federal Ad-
ministrative Court in Germany in 2003. In Belgium, two bills aimed at
incorporating special rules into the Nationality Code concerning the
withdrawal of nationality from persons who used fraudulent means to
acquire it were recently introduced in parliament. The tightening of
the rules in this area is clearly one of the main current trends with re-
spect to the loss of nationality. This contrasts with the fact that – ac-
cording to the information available – this mode of loss has been of lit-
tle relevance in practice in those states where it has already been in
force for some time. According to several provincial officials responsi-
ble for administering the nationality law in Austria, the reopening of
naturalisation cases is rare. In Belgium, a public prosecutor, upon dis-
covering that nationality was acquired by fraud, generally does not take
any action to withdraw this nationality. The Conseil d’Etat in France is
very strict when it comes to checking whether nationality should actu-
ally be withdrawn.9 Only one case is known since 1981 in Portugal
and, in Ireland, no evidence was found that the Minister has ever made
use of the respective regulations at all. In addition, the authorities do
not perform regular checks in any state.
Are these provisions applicable only to persons who became nationals
via a particular mode of acquisition? In most states, this mode of loss is
relevant for all persons who acquired nationality via any non-automatic

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LOSS OF NATIONALITY 203

mode of acquisition after birth. There are no such limits in Denmark

and Portugal, but the respective rules in both states are irrelevant in
practice for persons who became nationals ex lege at or after birth. Only
in Spain, some non-automatic modes of acquisition after birth are not
covered by these provisions, but they only concern very small groups of
persons who normally acquire nationality by ius sanguinis or ius soli
at birth.
Four states set time limits within which nationality may be with-
drawn or the acquisition may be nullified. In Finland, the limit is five
years, in the Netherlands generally twelve years and, in Spain, fifteen
years from the acquisition of nationality, whereas in France, nationality
may be withdrawn for two years after the fraud is discovered. The legal
rules in all other states do not contain any time limits, which means
that nationality can in principle be lost even after decades of having
held nationality. It is interesting to note that the avoidance of stateless-
ness is not prescribed by law for this mode of loss in Austria, Belgium,
Denmark, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal,
Spain or the United Kingdom. Whether the person would become sta-
teless – at the very least – has to be taken into account by the authori-
ties in Germany, but the only state explicitly limiting the loss of nation-
ality via this mode to multiple nationals is Finland. Other conditions for
the applicability of the respective regulations are rare. In fact, the only
additional condition in any of these states is that in the Netherlands
nationality can be withdrawn on the grounds of false information or
fraud only after the person has reached majority.
With the exceptions of Portugal and Spain, where the courts must
nullify the acquisition of nationality if it was based on false informa-
tion or fraud, the decision whether to deprive the person of his or her
nationality lies within the responsible authorities’ discretion. However,
some of these states (Denmark, Finland, Germany and Ireland) have
rules, which determine how this discretion shall be used (e.g. withdra-
wal only if the fraud actually had an effect on the decision to grant na-
tionality, obligation to balance public and private interests). Finally, in
all twelve states the persons concerned have to be informed of the deci-
sion to start a withdrawal or nullification procedure so that they can ex-
press their views of the situation during the procedure. In addition, tar-
get persons can also appeal in all states against the decision to with-
draw nationality or to nullify the acquisition.

4.3.4 Loss due to non-compliance with conditions for the acquisition of

nationality ex post (L10)
It is conceivable that nationality may only be granted by the authorities
under the explicit condition that the target person perform specific acts

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
204 HARALD WALDRAUCH

or meet particular other conditions after acquisition. What kind of post-

acquisition conditions do the authorities impose on persons acquiring
nationality and under what circumstances, if any, can nationality be
lost again if these conditions are not fulfilled?
Conditional acquisition of this kind does not exist in most EU15
states. In general, states only apply conditions that have to be met be-
fore the acquisition of nationality can occur. Only Austria, Germany,
Luxembourg and the Netherlands do occasionally grant nationality on
condition that the person performs certain actions after acquisition. In
all four states, this concerns renunciation of the foreign nationality if it
was impossible to renounce it ex ante. However, nationality can be lost
again only in Austria, Luxembourg and the Netherlands if the foreign
nationality is not renounced after acquisition. Germany only imposes
administrative fines in these cases. In Austria, the recently acquired na-
tionality can be withdrawn if it was granted more than two but less
than six years ago and if the person has retained his or her previous
nationality for his or her own reasons. The authority has to inform the
person of the impending withdrawal six months in advance. National-
ity is then lost automatically after these six months, unless the person
proves that the foreign nationality has been lost or that it was impossi-
ble or unreasonable to lose it. The Minister of Justice in Luxembourg
may send the persons concerned a request that they renounce the for-
eign nationality, after which they have two years to prove to have lost
the foreign nationality or, if this is not possible, to declare their wish to
retain Luxemburgish nationality. If neither action is taken within the
two years, nationality is lost ex lege. In the Netherlands, the Minister of
Justice may deprive naturalised Dutch nationals of their nationality if
they have not lost their previous nationality despite the fact that this
was a condition for naturalisation. Unlike Austria and Luxembourg,
the Dutch provisions do not set time frames within which the loss of
nationality has to be proven, nor do they oblige the authorities to in-
form the persons concerned of the fact that their nationality is about to
be withdrawn.
Since no statistics on loss of nationality exist in Austria or Luxem-
bourg, it is difficult to make any statements about the actual impor-
tance of their respective modes of withdrawal in practice. By contrast,
in the Netherlands, the withdrawal of Dutch nationality because of a
failure to renounce a previous foreign nationality is important in prac-
tice. Between 2002 and 2004, seventeen to 102 persons annually lost
their nationality for this reason.

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LOSS OF NATIONALITY 205

4.3.5 Loss due to loss of nationality by a parent (L11)

We now turn to regulations concerning the loss of nationality by min-
ors whose parents lose nationality. In France, Germany, Greece, Ire-
land, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom, a loss of national-
ity in itself has no effect on the nationality of the respective person’s
children. The last state to abandon such rules among these states was
Spain in 1982.
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and the Netherlands pro-
vide for a lapse of nationality by children of parents who acquire a for-
eign nationality in a certain way and therefore lose the respective state’s
nationality. However, this regulation only applies under two conditions:
the children also acquire the parents’ new foreign nationality (or al-
ready hold it) and the other parent is a foreign national as well. These
modes of loss have already been described in section 4.3.1.2.
However, four states (Finland, Sweden, Denmark and the Nether-
lands) also have or only have provisions regarding the loss of national-
ity by a child as a consequence of the child’s parent losing nationality for
other reasons. In all four states, however, the respective modes of loss of
nationality only apply if the children do not end up stateless and if
their other parent is a foreign national too. The laws in Denmark
(L11b) and Sweden stipulate that the child of a person who loses na-
tionality at the age of 22 because of permanent residence abroad (L02)
loses nationality ex lege. However, this only occurs under one additional
condition, which is that the child acquired nationality from the respec-
tive parent by ius sanguinis at birth. In Finland, the only mode of loss
that may lead to the loss of nationality of the respective person’s chil-
dren as well is if nationality was acquired by fraud (L09). This only ap-
plies, however, if the child acquired Finnish nationality from the parent
at or after birth. In the Netherlands, the loss of nationality also extends
to minor children (L11b) if the parent loses Dutch nationality by a vo-
luntary renunciation of nationality (L01a+b), long-term residence
abroad (L02) or a failure to renounce a foreign nationality after natura-
lisation in the Netherlands (L10). However, the Netherlands also has
the most exemptions from the general rules. In addition to the reasons
mentioned above (statelessness would result, other parent is Dutch),
Dutch nationality is not lost via this mode (L11b) by children who were
born in the state of their second nationality and had residence there at
the time they acquired that nationality, by children who have had their
residence in the country of acquired nationality uninterruptedly for five
years, or by children who became Dutch via the double ius soli rule
(mode A02).
To summarise, the extension of a loss of nationality to children is
the exception in the EU15 states, both because eight states do not have

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
206 HARALD WALDRAUCH

relevant rules at all and because the other seven states limit it to only
certain modes of loss and make it dependent on additional conditions.
Firstly, the modes of loss by the parents that may trigger a loss by their
children are the acquisition of a foreign nationality and sometimes cer-
tain other modes as well. However, no modes are included that are the
result of offences committed by the parent that are unrelated to the ac-
quisition of nationality itself (e.g. service in a foreign army, treason,
committing other crimes). Secondly, the main additional conditions for
children to lose nationality as a result of loss by one of their parents is
that they should not end up stateless and that the other parent should
not be a national.

4.3.6 Loss due to disloyalty, treason or offences against the state (L07)
Nationality law is a core area of state sovereignty. In seven EU15 states,
persons who violate the state’s basic interests or endanger its security
by committing acts such as disloyalty, treason, terrorism or crimes
against the state may be deprived of their nationality. In Belgium, Den-
mark (since 2004), France and Luxembourg, nationality can be with-
drawn only after a court decision, whereas in Greece, Ireland and the
United Kingdom the withdrawal lies within the Justice or Interior Min-
ister’s discretion. The offences targeted are: serious violations of obliga-
tions as a citizen in Belgium; disloyalty and crimes against the state in
Denmark; crimes against the basic interests of the state, terrorist acts,
services to a foreign state which are incompatible with being a national
and detrimental to the state’s interests (L07a), or acting as if a national
of a foreign state (L07b) in France; actions against the state’s interests
while residing abroad in Greece; failure in one’s duty of fidelity to the
nation and loyalty to the state in Ireland; failure to fulfil one’s duties as
a citizen (L07a) or an (attempted) violation of the laws on external and
internal security of the country (L07b) in Luxembourg; and – since
2002 – actions that are seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the
United Kingdom or a British Overseas Territory. In the Netherlands,
the introduction of regulations allowing the withdrawal of nationality
in case of terrorism is currently also on the political agenda. Spain, on
the other hand, outlawed the possibility to withdraw nationality from
nationals other than ‘by origin’ in case of crimes against the external
security of the state in 2002.
In some states, these modes of loss depend on the way the person ac-
quired nationality. In Belgium, Luxembourg and Ireland as well as in
France for all offences except acting as if belonging to a foreign state
(L07b), only persons who acquired nationality after birth can be de-
prived of it. In France, this only applies for ten years after the acquisi-
tion. The same was true until 2002 in the United Kingdom, where na-

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LOSS OF NATIONALITY 207

tionality could only be withdrawn –on grounds of disloyalty or disaffec-

tion towards the Queen, or for assisting an enemy during wartime – if
the person was a national by naturalisation or registration. By contrast,
the current provisions in the United Kingdom, Denmark and Greece
target all nationals, irrespective of how they became nationals. In addi-
tion, in Belgium, Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg, the withdrawal of
nationality for the reasons mentioned is possible in principle even if
the person concerned does not hold a second nationality. By contrast,
in Denmark, France (since 1998) and the United Kingdom (since
2002), the occurrence of statelessness has to be avoided in these cases.
Finally, it has to be stressed that these modes of withdrawal of na-
tionality seem generally to be of little relevance in practice in those
states, where they have already been in force for some time. For exam-
ple, in Belgium, the respective regulations have not been applied since
they were introduced after the Second World War. The rules in Den-
mark and the United Kingdom have been in force only for a short peri-
od of time so that statements about their relevance are not possible yet.
However, precisely because they were introduced only recently within
the context of tighter anti-terrorism measures, it can be assumed that
the authorities in these two states are determined also to apply them in
practice. The only regulation which we know has been used frequently
is the regulation in Greece (see section 4.2.1.1 and section 6.4.1 in
Chapter 6).

4.3.7 Loss due to other offences (L08)

While regulations regarding the withdrawal of nationality in cases of
offences against the basic interests of the state were recently intro-
duced in Denmark, made more restrictive in the United Kingdom and
are currently being discussed in the Netherlands, the trend with re-
spect to the loss of nationality on the grounds of other crimes is mov-
ing in the opposite direction. France abolished a provision in 1998 that
allowed for the deprivation of nationality from persons who became
French after birth on the basis of an expression of intent if they had
been sentenced to a prison term of more than five years. Similarly, in
the United Kingdom, a rule was eliminated in 2002 that provided for
the withdrawal of nationality from multiple nationals for five years
after becoming British by naturalisation or registration if they had been
sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment.
Despite the aforementioned reform in 1998, France is still one of
two states in which certain crimes less serious than harming the state’s
vital interests may lead to the loss of nationality, but only if the target
person holds a foreign nationality. However, the crimes are very speci-
fic: French nationality can be withdrawn from persons for ten years

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
208 HARALD WALDRAUCH

after they became French by naturalisation, reintegration or declaration

if they commit certain crimes while in office (abuse of authority, cor-
ruption, bribery) or if they violate the laws on compulsory military ser-
vice. The provisions in Luxembourg are considerably stricter. There,
persons who are not nationals by descent can be deprived of their na-
tionality, even if they end up stateless, after an irrevocable conviction
leading to a criminal penalty or imprisonment for any crime which is
one of a long list of crimes, including murder, robbery, concealment of
stolen goods, fraud, breach of trust, misappropriation, forgery and giv-
ing false evidence. However, these modes of loss are rarely, if ever, ap-
plied in practice in France or Luxembourg.

4.4 Summary and conclusions

As indicated in Chapter 2, section 2.4, we will try to summarise the in-

formation presented in the previous sections mainly by looking at im-
portant conditions across all modes of loss of nationality and by point-
ing out recent trends in this area. Before doing so, however, we analyse
the density of regulations concerning loss of nationality across coun-
tries.

4.4.1 Density of regulations

How many of the fifteen reasons in our typology are actual reasons for
the loss of nationality in each EU15 state? What is the ‘density of regu-
lations’ of loss of nationality? If we again leave aside consideration of
multiple entries in each category, we can conclude that the density of
provisions concerning loss of nationality varies even more than in the
area of acquisition of nationality. The bandwidth runs from effective
provisions in only three of our fifteen categories in Portugal to regula-
tions which can be classified in twelve different categories of modes of
loss in Luxembourg. This can be considered an interesting phenomen-
on: while both countries were at the low end of the spectrum concern-
ing density of rules of nationality acquisition, they now occupy posi-
tions at opposite extremes of the scale. The Netherlands (ten), Austria,
Belgium and France (all nine) are clearly above the average of 6.7 pro-
visions in different categories, while the values in Denmark and Ire-
land (seven) and in Finland and Germany (six) are close to the mean.
All other states are clearly below the average, with regulations classifi-
able in five (Italy, Spain) or four (Greece, Sweden and the United King-
dom) different categories of modes of loss of nationality.
It is interesting to note that the three Benelux states all have more
varied modes of loss of nationality than the average of all EU15 states.

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LOSS OF NATIONALITY 209

Should the Dutch government proceed with its plans to introduce pro-
visions regarding the loss of nationality in cases involving terrorist ac-
tivities (L07), the gap between it and all other states in this respect will
become even wider. At the other end of the scale are the four Southern
European states – Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain – which clearly
have fewer modes of loss in the different categories of our typology. In
a way, this low density of regulations concerning the loss of nationality
is the flipside of policies in the Southern European states that aim to
maintain links with all persons with the same ethno-cultural back-
ground as described in Chapter 3, section 3.4.

4.4.2 Frequency of certain reasons for the loss of nationality

Only one mode of loss exists in all states, which is loss by renunciation
(L01). In ten out of the fifteen states, renunciation always becomes ef-
fective ex lege if the conditions are met, whereas in Denmark, Finland,
France, Greece and Sweden the authorities always (in Finland) or at
least under certain circumstances have some discretion to refuse to
grant release from nationality (see Table 4.2). Greece is unique in this
context because the authorities there have discretion to refuse a release
from nationality via all but one sub-mode.
Three other situations may cause a loss of nationality in at least ten
states. Firstly, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Lux-
embourg, the Netherlands and Spain have provisions concerning the
automatic loss of nationality in the event of acquisition of a foreign na-
tionality (L05), although in France and Italy this only concerns persons
who acquire the nationality of certain states that ratified the 1963 Stras-
bourg Convention. In Greece and Ireland, nationality is not lost auto-
matically when a foreign nationality is acquired, but the authorities
may withdraw nationality for this reason. It is important to note that,
in Belgium, Greece, Ireland and Spain, nationality may be forfeited
upon acquisition of a foreign nationality even though foreign persons
becoming nationals do not have to lose their previous nationality. The
United Kingdom has almost always accepted multiple nationality, as
have Portugal since 1981, Sweden since 2001 and Finland since 2003.
Secondly, providing false information or other types of fraud during proce-
dures to acquire nationality are not reasons for the loss of nationality
(L09) only in Greece, Italy and Sweden. In the other states, the acquisi-
tion of nationality can either be reversed (Austria, Portugal and Spain)
or nationality can be withdrawn by the authorities (all other states).
Thirdly, twelve EU15 states provide for the loss of nationality when a
person who acquired nationality as a foundling or as a person who would
otherwise have been stateless at birth (acquisition mode A03) is found to

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 210

Table 4.2 Modes of loss of nationality in EU15 states in early 2005

Renun- Lapse or withdrawal of nationality or nullification of its acquisition
ciation
Abroad In the country or abroad
L01 L02 L03 L04 L05 L06 L07 L08 L09 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15
AUT D – L W L – – – N W L – – L N
BEL D L – – L – W – W – L – L L L
DEN R/D L – – L – W – W – L – – L –
FIN R L – – (L) – – – W – W – W L –
FRA R/D W W L – W W/ W – – – – L W
(W)
GER D – L – L L – – W – – – – L –
GRE R/D (W) W W – W – – – – – – – –
IRE D W – – W – W – W – – – – L W

This content downloaded from

ITA D – L L – – – – – – – L L –

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC

LUX D L W L L W W W W L – L L –

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

NED D L L – L – – – W W L – L L L
POR D – – – – – – – N – – – – – N
SPA D L L L – (W) – N – – – – – –
SWE R/D L – – (L) – – – – – L – – L –
UK D – – – – – W (W) W – – – – L –
HARALD WALDRAUCH

For notes see next page.

LOSS OF NATIONALITY 211

Notes from Table 4.2 on previous page.

For definitions of modes L01 to L15, see Chapter 2, section 2.2.2.
D = Renunciation by declaration: renunciation becomes effective automatically or
authorities cannot refuse the loss as soon as all conditions are met.
R = Release from nationality: a public authority has discretion to refuse renunciation.
L = Automatic lapse of nationality: nationality is lost automatically if all conditions are
met.
W = Withdrawal: loss of nationality requires an act by a public authority to become
effective.
N = Nullification of the acquisition of nationality: a public authority declares the
acquisition of nationality null and void and that, from a legal point of view, the
person has never held nationality.
(…) = Modes of loss no longer in force, but in force at some point since 1985

hold a foreign nationality (L14). Such provisions only seem to be missing

in Greece, Portugal and Spain.
Permanent residence abroad for a certain period of time (L02) and service
in a foreign army (L03) may also cause a loss of nationality in more
than half of all states. The former reason applies to persons born
abroad in Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden, and to
all nationals irrespective of their country of birth in Finland, Ireland,
the Netherlands and Spain. With the exception of Ireland, the loss of
nationality is automatic in all these states if certain conditions are met.
Service in a foreign army, on the other hand, is a reason for withdraw-
ing nationality in France, Greece and Luxembourg, whereas it is the
cause of an automatic lapse of nationality in Austria, Germany (since
2000), Italy, the Netherlands (since 2003) and Spain.
All the other possible reasons for the loss of nationality only exist in
fewer than eight EU15 states, with treason, disloyalty and other crimes
against the state (L07) and the loss of nationality by one’s parents (L11)
being the most frequent among them. Both are defined by seven states
as possible reasons for forfeiting nationality, in the former case mainly
by withdrawal and in the latter mainly by automatic lapse. All other
causes for the loss of nationality covered by our classification – entering
the non-military service of a foreign state (L04); the forced choice between
the nationality of the respective state and a foreign nationality (L06); crim-
inal offences below the level of treason, disloyalty or similar (L08); fail-
ure to meet the conditions for the acquisition of nationality ex post (L10);
and the annulment of filiation to a national (L13) – are included in the
laws of only six states or fewer. The forfeiture of nationality as a result
of a spouse’s loss of nationality has even been ruled out for at least
twenty years or more in all EU15 states.

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
212 HARALD WALDRAUCH

4.4.3 Recent trends concerning the loss of nationality

We could not discern any trends with respect to the regulations con-
cerning renunciation of nationality (L01). Amendments to nationality
laws in EU15 states have rarely, if ever, dealt with these provisions. The
opposite is true for loss after extended residence abroad (L02), with re-
gard to which legislative activity has been considerable since the late
1990s. There is no clear trend in this area, however. Spain introduced
its provisions only in 1990 and 2002 and Ireland (2001); Finland and
the Netherlands (both 2003) expanded the groups of persons affected
by their regulations. However, with the exception of Ireland, all these
states also made it easier for the persons concerned to take actions to
avoid this loss. On the other hand, Denmark (1999) and Sweden
(2001) liberalised the rules considerably by limiting their applicability
to multiple nationals. Even more importantly, in 1998 Greece elimi-
nated the heavily criticised rule in its legal system, which stated that
‘allogeneis’, i.e. persons who are not of Greek Orthodox descent, could
be deprived of their nationality – even if they ended up stateless – if
they abandoned Greek territory ‘with no intention to return’.
Liberalisations outnumber new restrictions only for two modes of
loss. Firstly, this concerns the loss upon acquisition of a foreign national-
ity (L05). Sweden (2001) and Finland (2003) abolished such provisions
recently, Austria (1999) and Spain (2002) have made it easier for their
nationals to retain nationality and the 2003 reform in the Netherlands
introduced new exceptions to the applicability of the main rule in this
area. However, the Netherlands is also among the two states with new
restrictions. With the same reform, a new rule of loss was introduced,
which specifically targets persons acquiring the nationality of states
that ratified the 1963 Strasbourg Convention. More importantly, with
effect from 2000, nationality lapses in Germany upon acquisition of a
foreign nationality even if the persons concerned retain their residence
in Germany. This new provision may especially affect up to 50,000
Germans of Turkish origin who reacquired their previous nationality.10
The trend is clearer in the second area, which comprises modes of loss
in cases of offences less serious than crimes against the state (L08). Rele-
vant rules targeting nationals who acquired nationality voluntarily after
birth were abolished in France in 1998 and in the United Kingdom in
2002.
In other areas, however, the trend is clearly towards making the loss
of nationality easier. First of all, this applies to the withdrawal of na-
tionality if it was acquired by giving false information or by other fraudu-
lent means (L09). Denmark (2002), Finland and the Netherlands (both
2003) introduced new provisions concerning this offence recently. The
Federal Administrative Court in Germany passed important rulings on

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LOSS OF NATIONALITY 213

such cases in 2003. In Belgium, two bills were introduced in parlia-

ment recently, which include new provisions concerning the withdra-
wal of nationality in cases where it was acquired by fraud (currently
this is ‘only’ possible on the basis of a general administrative regula-
tion). Secondly, EU15 states have also shown heightened legislative ac-
tivities in recent years, especially since 11 September 2001, regarding
the forfeiture of nationality in cases of treason or other crimes against the
state (including terrorism) (L07). The United Kingdom clearly tigh-
tened its regulations in 2002, Denmark introduced relevant provisions
in 2004 and the Dutch government announced plans to introduce
rules concerning the loss of nationality in the event of terrorist activ-
ities. The only counter-example is Spain, where the possibility of with-
drawing nationality in cases of crimes against the external security of
the state was abolished in 2002. Thirdly, the loss of nationality in cases
of military service for a foreign state (L03) is another area of increased
restrictions. Similar rules have been introduced over the past five years
in Germany (2000) and the Netherlands (2003). Fourthly, the loss of
nationality by a multiple national who is forced to choose one of his or her
nationalities and opts for the foreign nationality (L06) was only intro-
duced in Germany in 2000. It has to be added, though, that considera-
tion of this mode of loss was purely a result of liberalisation in the area
of ius soli at birth (A02).
All in all, restrictive tendencies seem slightly to outweigh liberalising
trends. The restrictions mainly concern the loss of nationality on the
grounds of certain offences (foreign military service; crimes against the
state; false information and fraud), with the exception of ‘ordinary’
criminal offences. However, there is no clear geographical pattern with
respect to trends in the area of rules dealing with the loss of national-
ity. The only geographical area where tendencies in a certain direction
clearly outweigh countervailing trends in all states is the British Isles.
Amendments in the recent past in Ireland and the United Kingdom
have made the withdrawal of nationality easier even though, in the lat-
ter state, the provisions concerning loss on the grounds of certain
crimes have been abolished. In all other regions, the picture is mixed:
– Nordic states: the amendments in Sweden have definitely reduced
the possibilities for losing nationality. In Denmark, the trend is
clearly towards making the withdrawal of nationality easier in cases
where certain offences are committed, while in Finland restrictive
and liberalising legislative changes are fairly balanced;
– German-speaking states: the reform of the German nationality law,
which came into force in 2000, only introduced new modes of loss
or increased the risk of losing nationality via existing modes. The
only noteworthy change in Austria, in 1999, made it easier to retain
nationality in the event of acquisition of a foreign nationality;

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
214 HARALD WALDRAUCH

– Benelux states: the reforms of the nationality codes in Belgium and

Luxembourg since the early 1990s have not modified the rules con-
cerning the loss of nationality. In the Netherlands, however, amend-
ments in the recent past have definitely brought about more new
restrictions than merely rules to make the loss of nationality less
likely;
– Southern Europe: while the rules for losing nationality have not
been modified in Italy or Portugal, the only change in Greece was
the abolition of an important mode of loss. In Spain, changes
which increase the chances of losing nationality and changes that
make retention easier have been fairly balanced since 1990.

4.4.4 Conditions for the loss of nationality

We close by looking at important conditions across all modes of loss of
nationality, i.e. whether nationality may be lost only if statelessness
does not ensue, if the persons concerned acquired nationality via a cer-
tain mode of acquisition, or if they currently reside abroad.
As Hailbronner describes in this volume, the ‘avoidance of stateless-
ness is probably the oldest and most commonly recognised principle of
nationality law’. But to what extent is this principle reflected in the
EU15 states’ nationality laws? As can be seen in the top half of Table
4.3, the prevention of statelessness is still a long way from being pre-
scribed explicitly in all states for all modes of loss of nationality. The
only states where the loss of nationality can never leave a person state-
less are Finland and Sweden, while this is specifically not imperative
for several modes of loss in Austria, Greece, Ireland or Luxembourg.
Leaving aside modes for which the acquisition (L05) or possession of a
foreign nationality (L06, L14, in practice also L10) is the very reason
for the loss, there is only one mode for which all states with appropri-
ate rules explicitly prohibit the occurrence of statelessness, i.e. loss of
nationality by a child resulting from the forfeiture of nationality by a
parent (L11). Besides this, statelessness is avoided in almost all coun-
tries only in cases of a renunciation of nationality (L01). This is not ex-
plicitly prescribed by law for only one special mode of renunciation in
Greece (L01c: persons with no substantial links to Greece). Persons
also do not generally end up without nationality after a loss of national-
ity due to extended residence abroad (L02), but France and Ireland do
not explicitly rule out statelessness in such cases.
More importantly, there are three offences that may cause a loss of
nationality in more than half of all EU15 states with appropriate provi-
sions even if the persons concerned do not hold a second nationality.
Firstly, subsequent statelessness is explicitly outlawed when nationality
is lost because the person enters the military (L03) and/or non-military

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LOSS OF NATIONALITY 215

service of a foreign state (L04) in France, Germany and the Nether-

lands, but not in Austria, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg or Spain. Secondly,
statelessness also has to be avoided in the event of a withdrawal of na-
tionality because of disloyalty, treason or other crimes against the state
(L07) in three states, i.e. Denmark, France and the United Kingdom.
However, Belgium, Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg do not prohibit a
loss of nationality in these cases. Thirdly, the duty to prevent stateless-
ness is the least binding when it comes to the withdrawal of nationality
or the reversal of its acquisition because it was acquired on the basis of
fraud (L09). Only Finland applies its provisions exclusively to multiple
nationals in this context and, in Germany, the authorities at least have
to consider whether statelessness is a justifiable outcome of the with-
drawal. In the other ten states with relevant rules the persons con-
cerned may end up with no nationality at all!
Our second question is: do the rules of loss make a difference with
respect to the way nationality was acquired? As the lower half of Table
4.3 reveals, only in Portugal is the mode of acquisition irrelevant for all
modes of loss of nationality. There is no reason for the loss of national-
ity where the method of acquisition is not relevant in at least one state.
Leaving aside modes for which the method of acquisition is decisive by
definition,11 it is mainly relevant to loss of nationality if fraud was com-
mitted to acquire it (L09) and because of a failure to comply with con-
ditions for its acquisition ex post (L10). The respective provisions in
both cases apply almost exclusively to persons who became nationals
voluntarily. In Denmark and Portugal, where there is no such explicit
condition, the rules are most likely only relevant in practice to persons
who also acquired nationality non-automatically. However, the way in
which a person became a national is important for modes of loss based
on other offences as well. Disloyalty, treason or other crimes against
the state (L07) are reasons for the withdrawal of nationality in Bel-
gium, Ireland, Luxembourg and in some cases also in France, only if
the person concerned became a national voluntarily. On the other
hand, the relevant rules in Denmark, Greece and the United Kingdom
apply irrespective of the way in which nationality was acquired. France
and Luxembourg, as the only two states with current rules concerning
the forfeiture of nationality in cases of offences less serious than
crimes against the state (L08), also limit their applicability to nationals
who did not acquire nationality by birth. By contrast, where nationality
may be lost because a person enters a foreign state’s military (L03) or
public service (L04), the respective provisions apply to all nationals in
most states. The exception in this respect is Luxembourg, where only
persons who are not nationals by birth can be affected.
The loss of nationality by children as a result of the loss by a parent
(L11) is also only relevant to certain nationals in the majority of states,

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Table 4.3 Selected conditions for the loss of nationality in early 2005
216

Renun- Lapse or withdrawal of nationality or nullification of its acquisition

ciation
Abroad In the country or abroad
L01 L02 L03 L04 L05* L0- L07 L08 L09 L10 L11 L13 L14* L15
6*
Mode of loss is dependent on the target person not ending up stateless
AUT Y – N N Y – – – N Y* Y – Y Y
BEL Y Y – – Y – N – N – Y Y Y Y
DEN Y Y – – Y – Y – N – Y – Y –
FIN Y Y – – (Y) – – – Y – Y Y Y –
FRA Y N Y Y – Y Y/ N – – – Y Y
(N)
GER Y – Y – Y Y – – N** – – – Y –
GRE Y/N (N) N Y – N – – – – – – –
IRE Y N – – Y – N – N – – – Y N

This content downloaded from

ITA Y – N Y – – – – – – Y Y –

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC

LUX Y Y N Y Y N N N Y* Y N Y –

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

NED Y Y Y – Y – – – N Y* Y N Y Y
POR Y – – – – – – – N – – – – N
SPA Y Y N Y – (Y) – N – – – – –
SWE Y Y – – (Y) – – – – – Y – Y –
UK Y – – – – – Y (Y) N – – – Y –
HARALD WALDRAUCH
 Renun- Lapse or withdrawal of nationality or nullification of its acquisition
ciation
Abroad In the country or abroad
L01 L02 L03 L04 L05* L0- L07 L08 L09 L10 L11 L13 L14* L15
6*
Mode of loss is dependent on the target person’s mode of acquisition of nationality
AUT N – N N N – – – Y Y N – Y Y
LOSS OF NATIONALITY

BEL N N – – N – Y – Y – N Y Y N
DEN N N – – N – N – N – Y – Y –
FIN N N – – (N) – – – Y – Y Y Y –
FRA N/Y Y N N – Y/N Y/(Y) Y – – – Y Y
GER N – N – N Y – – Y – – – Y –
GRE N/Y (N) N N – N – – – – – – –
IRE N Y – – Y – Y – Y – – – Y Y
ITA N/Y – N N – – – – – – Y Y –
LUX N N Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y –

This content downloaded from

NED N N N – N/Y – – – Y Y Y Y Y Y/N

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POR N – – – – – – – N – – – – N
SPA N Y/N N N – (Y) – Y – – – – –
SWE N N – – (N) – – – – – Y – Y –
UK N – – – – – N (Y) Y – – – Y –
Notes: Y = Yes; N = No; Y/N = generally Yes, but for some modes No; N/Y = generally No, but for some modes Yes;
(…) = modes of loss no longer in force, but in force at some point since 1985;
* = avoidance of statelessness by definition because acquisition or holding of a foreign nationality is the very reason for the loss;
217

** = Avoidance of statelessness at least has to be taken into account.

218 HARALD WALDRAUCH

i.e. for children who acquired nationality from their parents (Nordic
states) or who are not nationals on the basis of the double ius soli rule
(Netherlands). By contrast, in Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg, the
way in which nationality was acquired is irrelevant for this mode. The
applicability of the three reasons for loss that exist in more than half of
all states and that are probably of the greatest relevance in practice is
rarely dependent on the mode of acquisition. A renunciation of nation-
ality (L01) is possible for all nationals in all EU15 states, even if special
rules exist for certain nationals in France, Greece and Italy. Among the
ten states providing for a loss of nationality because a foreign national-
ity is acquired (L05), only Ireland and the Netherlands, in certain cases,
limit their respective modes to naturalised nationals (Ireland) or na-
tionals other than by double ius soli (the Netherlands). Additionally,
loss because of extended residence abroad (L02) is explicitly applicable
to certain nationals only in France (certain nationals iure sanguinis),
Ireland (naturalised nationals) and in some cases also in Spain (natura-
lised nationals, certain nationals iure sanguinis).
Finally, which modes of loss are explicitly tied to the condition that
the target person must currently hold residence abroad? We would ex-
pect that all the modes of loss we grouped together under the heading
‘loss abroad’ apply this condition, but this is not the case. As described
in section 4.2.1, nationality may lapse in Finland, the Netherlands and
Spain on the basis of rules regulating the loss of nationality after ex-
tended residence abroad (L02) even if the persons concerned have al-
ready taken up residence in the country (again). None of the eight
states that provide for a loss of nationality because the person enters
the service of a foreign state (L03+L04) explicitly requires that the per-
son actually reside abroad, although this will most likely be the case
(which is why we included these two modes under the heading ‘loss
abroad’). However, residence abroad is also not an explicit condition for
most other modes of loss. Residence abroad is always a condition for
renunciation of nationality (L02) only in Ireland, Italy and Spain, but
six other states apply special rules for expatriates in this context. Be-
yond this, only two reasons for loss of nationality, at least in some
states, carry the condition of current residence abroad. This concerns
the loss upon acquisition of a foreign nationality (L05) in Italy and
Spain and the withdrawal of nationality because of actions against the
basic interests of the state (L07) in Greece. All other modes of loss of
nationality in all states can occur even if the target person still resides
in the country.

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LOSS OF NATIONALITY 219

Notes

1 In this Chapter, we look at all modes of loss of nationality according to our typology
(see Chapter 2, section 2.2.2), except modes L13 (loss due to annulment of paternity/
maternity), L14 (loss by foundlings or children who would otherwise have been
stateless upon establishment of their foreign nationality) and L15 (other modes of
loss). For an analysis of these modes of loss, see the long version of Chapter 4,
section 4.3.6.3 available under www.imiscoe.org/natac. The long version also contains
more details on the modes of loss of nationality described here.
2 It was in force from 1984 until 1986 and was then reintroduced in 2001.
3 Spain asks persons applying for naturalisation to ’renounce’ their previous
nationality. However, no proof is required that applicants actually did lose their
previous nationality; see Chapter 3, section 3.2.1.2.
4 For more details, see the country report on Greece in Volume 2.
5 Denmark also provides for loss of nationality if a person enters a foreign public
service, but only if the person thus acquires the foreign state’s nationality. Therefore,
the trigger for the loss is the acquisition of a foreign nationality (see section 4.3.1).
Similar provisions existed in Sweden until 2001 and in Finland until 2003.
6 In 2003, the case of an Austrian woman attracted public attention; she had spent her
whole life in the Ukraine and her nationality was withdrawn because she had worked
there as a teacher in a state school for three months in 1961 (Der Standard, 9 March
2003). While this was obviously interpreted as ’substantially damaging the interests
and reputation of the Republic’, the public service in a foreign state of a more fa-
mous Austrian national, i.e. Arnold Schwarzenegger, does not seem to meet this cri-
terion.
7 In Spain, persons becoming Spanish only have to make a fairly symbolic declaration
that they renounce their foreign nationality. On the special case of France and Italy:
see below.
8 See also section 6.4.1 in Chapter 6 for statistics on loss of nationality for this reason
in France.
9 See Migration und Bevölkerung 3 (2005).
10 This concerns loss of nationality because the filiation to a national from which the
target person derives his or her nationality is annulled (L13) and loss by foundlings
and children who would otherwise be stateless, if it is subsequently established that
they do hold a foreign nationality (L14).

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 This content downloaded from
132.174.251.189 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms