Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v.
Guatemala) [1955]
• Friedrich Nottebohm was born September 16,
1881, in Hamburg, Germany. In 1905, he moved
to Guatemala where , he went into business in
trade, banking, and plantations with his brothers.
The business prospered, and Nottebohm became
its head in 1937. Nottebohm would live in
Guatemala until 1943 as a permanent resident
without ever acquiring Guatemalan citizenship.
He would sometimes visit Germany on business,
and had friends and relatives in both countries. He
also paid a few visits to Liechtenstein to see his
brother Hermann, who had moved there in 1931
and became a citizen.
• In 1939, Nottebohm again visited Liechtenstein, and
on October 9, 1939, shortly after World War II began,
he applied for citizenship. His application was
approved and he became a citizen. Under German law,
he lost his German citizenship. In January 1940, he
returned to Guatemala on a Liechtenstein passport
and informed the local government of his change of
nationality.
• Although originally neutral, Guatemala soon sided
with the Allies and formally declared war on Germany
on December 11, 1941. In spite of his Liechtenstein
citizenship, the Guatemalan government treated
Nottebohm as a German citizen. As part of a massive
program in which the US co-operated with various
Latin American countries to intern in the US over
4,000 persons of German ancestry or citizenship,
Nottebohm was arrested by the Guatemalan
government as an enemy alien in 1943, handed over
to a US military base, and transferred to the US, where
• The Guatemalan government confiscated all his
property in the country, and the US government also
seized his company's assets in the US. In 1950, the US
government returned to the Nottenbohm family about
half the value of what it had seized. The Guatemalan
government held on to his property and returned 16
coffee plantations to his family only in 1962, after he
had died. After his release, he returned to
Liechtenstein, where he lived for the rest of his life.
• In 1951, the Liechtenstein government, acting on
behalf of Nottebohm, brought suit against Guatemala
in the International Court of Justice for what it argued
was unjust treatment of him and the illegal
confiscation of his property. However, the government
of Guatemala argued that Nottebohm did not gain
Liechtenstein citizenship for the purposes of
international law. The court agreed and so stopped
the case from continuing.
• though the Court stated that it is the sovereign right of
all states to determine its own citizens and criteria for
becoming one in municipal law, such a process would
have to be internationally scrutinized if the question is
of diplomatic protection. The Court upheld the
principle
of
effective
nationality
(the Nottebohm principle): the national must prove a
meaningful connection to the state in question. That
principle had previously been applied only in cases of
dual nationality to determine the nationality that
should be used in a given case. The court ruled that
Nottebohm's naturalization as a citizen of
Liechtenstein had not been based on any genuine link
with that country, but for the sole purpose of enabling
him to replace his status as the national of a
belligerent state with that of a neutral state in a time
of war. The Court held that Liechtenstein was not
entitled to take up his case and put forward an
international claim on his behalf against Guatemala:
• Naturalization was asked for not so much for the
purpose of obtaining a legal recognition of
Nottebohm's membership in fact in the population of
Liechtenstein, as it was to enable him to substitute for
his status as a national of a belligerent State that of a
national of a neutral State, with the sole aim of thus
coming within the protection of Liechtenstein but not
of becoming wedded to its traditions, it interests, its
way of life or of assuming the obligations-other than
fiscal obligations-and exercising the rights pertaining
to the status thus acquired. Guatemala is under no
obligation to recognize a nationality granted in such
circumstances. Liechtenstein consequently is not
entitled to extend its protection to Nottebohm visà-vis Guatemala and its claim must, for this reason, be
held to be inadmissible.
Kuric v. Slovenia Application no
26828/06, 13 July 2010
• When Yugoslavia broke apart, people in Slovenia
were given six months to apply for citizenship. In
February 1992 the government erased the names
of over 18,000 individuals from the civil register
on the basis that they had not applied for
citizenship, making these individuals effectively
stateless. The Grand Chamber of the European
Court of Human Rights found that the severe
impact of the erasure violated the private life of
those affected, and that there had been unlawful
discrimination against them on account of their
nationality.
• Facts: On June 25, 1991 Slovenia declared
independence as a successor state of Yugoslavia. Until
that time, Slovenia was one of six republics within the
federation of Yugoslavia, and nationals enjoyed "dual
citizenship" for internal purposes, meaning that they
were citizens both of the federation and of one of the
six republics. They had freedom of movement within
Yugoslavia and could acquire permanent residence in
any of the six republics. According to transitional laws
at independence, citizens of other Yugoslav republics
who were not citizens of Slovenia could acquire
citizenship from the newly independent sovereign
state of Slovenia if they met three requirements: (1)
they had acquired permanent resident status in
Slovenia by December 23, 1990; (2) they were actually
residing in Slovenia; and (3) they applied for
citizenship within six months after the Citizenship Act
entered into force (i.e., from June 25, 1991).
• On February 26, 1992, the Slovenian government
"erased" from the civil registry the names of at least
18,305 and perhaps as many as 25,671 citizens of the
former Yugoslavia who were legally residing in
Slovenia, thereby withdrawing their legal resident
status and placing them on a register of foreigners
illegally residing in Slovenia. Several legal challenges to
this action were brought before the Slovene courts.
Although the Slovene Constitutional Court declared
the erasure illegal, the Slovenian government failed to
adopt legislative measures to restore legal residence
status to the individuals whose names were erased.
• Eleven victims of the erasure filed a complaint before
the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2006
claiming that the erasure and the consequences they
are suffering violated various provisions of the
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
• On July 13, 2010, the Third Section Chamber
unanimously held that Slovenia had violated Article 8
of the Convention. In particular, the Chamber
concluded that arbitrary denial of citizenship might in
certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8
and that, because the applicants had developed an
extensive network of relationships in Slovenia, they
had a private and/or family life there at the material
time. The protracted refusal to regulate the applicants’
legal status amounted to an unlawful interference
with these rights.
• On February 21, 2011, at the request of the Slovenian
government, the Chamber decision was referred to
the Grand Chamber.
• Arguments
• Arbitrary Deprivation of Citizenship. The way in which the Slovenian
Government arbitrarily deprived the applicants of their citizenship
breached the right to private life protected in Article 8 ECHR. In
particular, the process by which individuals were left at risk of being
arbitrarily denied citizenship and becoming stateless had such a
profound impact upon the victims as to interfere with Article 8. The
European Convention on Nationality places a distinct emphasis on the
importance of habitual residence in nationality rules, the notion of a
“genuine and effective link” and the State’s obligation to facilitate the
acquisition of nationality by stateless persons habitually resident on
the territory, and in particular children.
• Discrimination. The applicants argued that they had been treated
even less favourably than aliens from outside former Yugoslavia who
had lived in Slovenia since before independence and whose
permanent residence permits remained valid. Justice Initiative added
that because the Slovenian population was ethnically homogeneous
as compared to other former SFRY republics, the “erasure”
disproportionately affected non-ethnic Slovenes, ex-SFRY minorities,
and Roma, thereby also discriminating among residents on ethnic
grounds, many of whom did not even have another nationality,
contrary to Article 13 ECHR (non-discrimination).
• Findings
• On June 26, 2012, the Grand Chamber of the
European Court of Human Rights delivered its
judgment, agreeing with the Chamber that
there had been a violation of Article 8 (private
life), but also finding that there had been a
violation of Article 14 (non-discrimination).