## Facts

- A naturalized French citizen faced a government decree seeking revocation of acquired nationality based on a terrorism-related criminal conviction.
- The governing statute authorized revocation only for persons who acquired nationality, only after a binding consultative procedure involving the supreme administrative court, and only if revocation would not make the person stateless.
- The challenged provisions allowed revocation for certain serious offenses, including terrorism, and set time limits tied to (i) the date of naturalization and (ii) the date of the acts, with longer limits for terrorism-related conduct.
- During proceedings contesting the revocation decree, the petitioner raised a constitutional challenge to the statutory grounds and time limits for revocation, including their application to acts committed before naturalization.
- The referring court transmitted the constitutional question to the constitutional court for review.

## Issues

1. Whether limiting revocation of nationality to persons who acquired nationality (and not citizens by birth) violates constitutional equality guarantees.
2. Whether allowing revocation based on acts committed before naturalization violates constitutional protections governing sanctions and legally secured status.
3. Whether extending the revocation time limits to fifteen years for terrorism-related conduct constitutes an excessive or disproportionate sanction.

## Decision

- The court upheld the constitutionality of the provisions authorizing revocation for terrorism-related convictions.
- The court held that differential treatment between acquired citizens and citizens by birth did not violate equality because it was directly connected to a general-interest objective: combating terrorism, and operated under strict statutory conditions.
- The court held that permitting revocation based on pre-naturalization acts was constitutional where revocation depends on a criminal conviction, remains time-limited, and cannot result in statelessness.
- The court held that the fifteen-year time limits for terrorism-related conduct were sufficiently determinate and proportionate to the gravity of the targeted offenses and the public-safety objective.
- The court issued no narrowing construction and invalidated no part of the challenged provisions.

## Legal Principles

- Equality guarantees permit differential treatment when it is directly related to the law’s purpose and justified by a general-interest objective.
- Revocation of acquired nationality for terrorism-related convictions may be constitutionally permissible when confined to narrowly defined serious offenses, conditioned on criminal conviction, and barred where it would create statelessness.
- A legislature may set extended but fixed limitation periods for status-based measures tied to especially grave public-order offenses, so long as the limits are determinate and proportionate.
- Procedural safeguards and constrained administrative discretion (including required high-level review) support the constitutionality of a revocation regime affecting acquired nationality.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a narrowly circumscribed revocation regime applicable to naturalized citizens convicted of terrorism-related offenses, finding the distinction from birthright citizens justified by the counter-terrorism objective and concluding that the inclusion of pre-naturalization acts and fifteen-year time limits remained proportionate and sufficiently bounded.


M. Ahmed S. (Revocation of Citizenship), No. 2014-439 QPC (Conseil Const. Jan. 23, 2015)