SC Grand Chamber Spoke About the Termination of Ukrainian Citizenship Due to Its Loss Through the Voluntary Acquisition of Citizenship of Another State

The person appealed to the Supreme Court as a court of first instance the Decree of the President of Ukraine “On Termination of Citizenship” regarding the loss of Ukrainian citizenship by the plaintiff.

The Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court dismissed the claim. The plaintiff appealed against this judgment to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. After examining the case, the SC Grand Chamber dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court.

As the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court noted, Article 4 of the Constitution of Ukraine established that the grounds for terminating Ukrainian citizenship were determined by law. In accordance with Article 17 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Citizenship of Ukraine", the citizenship of Ukraine is terminated: 1) as a result of renunciation of the citizenship of Ukraine; 2) due to the loss of Ukrainian citizenship; 3) on the grounds stipulated by international treaties of Ukraine. The grounds for loss of Ukrainian citizenship are regulated in para. 1, part 1 of Art. 19 of this Law, and such a ground is the voluntary acquisition by a citizen of Ukraine of the citizenship of another state, if at the time of such acquisition he has reached the age of majority.

Consequently, the termination of citizenship of Ukraine as a result of its loss due to the active actions of an adult person aimed at acquiring citizenship of another state does not constitute a deprivation of citizenship of Ukraine.

The SC Grand Chamber pointed out that in administrative cases the duty to prove the lawfulness of a decision, act or omission rested with the defendant, however, the requirements of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine according to which each party must prove the circumstances on which its claims and objections are based should also be taken into account. In this regard, given the requirements of such principles of administrative proceedings as competitiveness and official clarification of all circumstances in the case, the plaintiff was given the opportunity to reasonably object to the arguments and evidence of the defendant and was asked to provide his evidence and prove their persuasiveness before the court, in particular, in terms of the termination of Israeli citizenship on the date when the impugned Decree was issued. The plaintiff did not provide such evidence, while the defendant fulfilled his obligation to prove the lawfulness of the impugned Decree.

The facts and circumstances relating to the termination of Israeli citizenship, taking into account the arguments of the plaintiff, should be known to him as the person in respect of whom such facts and circumstances existed or exist and concerned or concern him. The burden of proving the fact of termination of Israeli citizenship (i.e. refuting the defendant's arguments about the lawfulness of his decree) lay solely on the plaintiff. But he did not fulfill this obligation.

In addition, in his statement of claim, the plaintiff stated that he voluntarily applied for Israeli citizenship and, as a result of such an application, acquired it. According to the content of para. 1, part 1, Art. 19 of the Law of Ukraine "On Citizenship of Ukraine", the reasons for such acquisition have no legal significance for assessing the lawfulness of issuing the impugned Decree by the defendant. The loss of citizenship by the plaintiff as a result of the voluntary acquisition of the citizenship of another state indicates the absence of a violation of Art. 7 of the European Convention on Nationality and Art. 8 of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, both ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

The SC Grand Chamber also pointed out that the legislation of Ukraine was quite liberal regarding the renewal of citizenship after its loss. Thus, according to para. 4, part 1, Art. 6 of the Law of Ukraine "On Citizenship of Ukraine", the citizenship of Ukraine is acquired as a result of the renewal of citizenship the procedure for which is determined by Art. 10 and the plaintiff can use this effective legal remedy.

Taking into account the above, the actions of the defendant regarding the issuance of the Decree on the termination of the plaintiff's citizenship of Ukraine were not arbitrary and irrational, since they were based on the requirements of the legislation, were confirmed by evidence and in any case were not erroneous with regard to the facts, in particular, the fact that the plaintiff voluntarily acquired Israeli citizenship and kept it and, as a consequence, there were grounds for issuing the said Decree.

The Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of September 15, 2022, in case No. 9901/166/21 (proceedings No.11-18заі22) - https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/106660143.

This and other legal positions of the Supreme Court can be found in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - lpd.court.gov.ua/login.