Calculation of the period for the revocation of citizenship in cases where a person has acted in bad faith in the process of acquiring citizenship comply with the Constitution
The Constitutional Court recognised as compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution the provision which establishes calculation of the period for the revocation of Latvian citizenship in cases where, in the process of restoration of the rights of a citizen or naturalisation, a person has provided false information or concealed facts relating to the conditions for acquiring or restoring Latvian citizenship. The Constitutional Court emphasised that a person could not rely on the retention of citizenship if it had been acquired in bad faith. At the same time, the Constitutional Court indicated that the institutions and courts had the obligation to assess the proportionality of the decision on revocation of citizenship in untypical circumstances.
The Constitutional Court examined the case initiated on the basis of the application of the Senate in a written procedure. In the case brought by the applicant before the court, citizenship of a person was revoked because in 1995, when proving the belonging to the community of Latvian citizens, the person concealed the fact of being a citizen of another country.
According to the norms of the Citizenship Law, Latvian citizenship may be revoked for a person if he or she has intentionally provided false information or concealed the facts that apply to the conditions for the acquisition or restoration of Latvian citizenship, when certifying belonging to Latvian citizenship or during naturalisation. However, the decision on revocation of Latvian citizenship shall be taken in such a case if not more than 10 years have elapsed since the acquisition or restoration of citizenship. Nevertheless, the contested norm included in the Transitional Provisions of this Law establishes a different period calculated for the revocation of citizenship for the persons who have acquired or restored citizenship until 1 October 2013. Thus, for these persons the time period of 10 years starts on 1 October 2013, not on the date of acquisition or restoration of citizenship. The applicant contests this provision of the Transitional Provisions, considering that it is contrary to the principle of legal equality contained in the first sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution, since the total time period during which the citizenship of the person who has acquired or restored citizenship until 1 October 2013 may be revoked exceeds 10 years.
When assessing compliance of the contested norm with the principle of legal equality included in Article 91 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court first of all emphasised that Latvian citizenship was an enduring legal connection of a person with the State of Latvia. It is characterised, inter alia, by a pledge of loyalty and by the entirety of interrelated rights and obligations between a citizen and the State. This means that before acquiring Latvian citizenship, a person must provide the responsible authority with all the information needed to make a lawful decision. A person cannot be unaware that he or she has acted unlawfully if, for example, he or she does not inform the authority of circumstances which, by law, prevent him or her from being a citizen, even if the authority has not directly requested the information.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the treatment of persons included in the contested norm was aimed at the protection of essential State interests. The identity of the persons who constitute the source of sovereign power, i.e. the people of Latvia, is of fundamental importance in any democratic state governed by the rule of law. It is citizens who, through their active involvement, shape and determine the life of the State, including by participating in the formation of constitutional institutions, as provided for in the Constitution. It is therefore important that these essential functions are performed only by persons who have become citizens in good faith or through legal means, as this affects the statehood consciousness of every Latvian citizen and the public confidence in both the state system as a whole and in individual state institutions. However, the fact that the legislator has set a specific period for the revocation of citizenship and its calculation does not exempt the legislator from the obligation to assess the proportionality of the decision on revocation of citizenship in untypical circumstances where the decision significantly affects the fundamental rights of a person.
The Constitutional Court also took into account, inter alia, that the facts about which a person may provide false information may be very diverse. Moreover, it may be objectively difficult to ascertain this information, especially if it is related to a potential threat to internal or external security and is at least partly intelligence-derived. Therefore, additional time may be needed to perform these functions. In view of the above, the Constitutional Court recognised that the norm establishing calculation of the period for the revocation of Latvian citizenship in cases where a person acted in bad faith in the process of restoration of citizenship or naturalisation complied with the principle of legal equality provided for in Article 91 of the Constitution.
Linked case: 2022-36-01