Opinion on the draft European convention on nationality

Doc. 7718
23 January 1997

REPORT[1]

Rapporteur: Mr Lubomir FOGA�, Slovakia, Socialist Group

Summary

            Nationality issues are of the highest political importance because they affect a state's sovereignty and are related to certain emergency situations in Europe  - partition of states, ethnic conflicts, immigration, refugee status etc.

            The draft convention submitted to the Assembly for opinion is a determined effort to take into account the new democratic order in the countries of central and eastern Europe since 1989 and the major changes in the legislation of all member states.  It strives to clarify and address every dimension of the issue, and above all to embody a variety of principles in a single text: the right to a nationality, the general principle of non-discrimination, prevention of statelessness, multiple nationality, etc.

            The Assembly welcomes the draft convention on nationality and the principles and rules promoted in it.  It believes that it will contribute to the harmonisation of national legislations on a common basis.

            However, it feels that it is necessary to make certain amendments to the draft convention in order to render it more effective.

I.  Draft opinion

1.         The Parliamentary Assembly emphasises the major political importance of nationality and citizenship issues and the fundamental role played in this field by the Council of Europe, as regards both its standard-setting activities and co-operation and assistance with member or non-member states.

2.         The Assembly notes that the 1963 Convention on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and on Military Obligations in Cases of Multiple Nationality and its protocols were ill-designed to take into account the new situation facing western societies and the democratic changes that have come about in central and eastern Europe; it points out that there are various gaps in the positive law of member states and highlights the need to harmonise current legislations in member countries.

3.         The Assembly welcomes the draft convention on nationality, submitted to it for opinion, which it considers to be an intelligible, lucid and far-reaching text and subscribes on the whole to the principles and rules contained therein.

4.         The Assembly is convinced that the draft convention will help prevent statelessness, in particular by limiting the possibilities of withdrawal of nationality. It subscribes to the rules designed to facilitate the acquisition of nationality, to facilitate recovery of one's nationality of origin, to limit the possibility of loss of nationality to certain duly justified cases, to guarantee fair and due process and to make sure that persons with more than one nationality are required to fulfil their military obligations in only one state.

5.         It notes that the draft convention, while remaining neutral on the issue, allows for multiple nationality, leaving states free to decide on their own policy on this matter.

6.         It points out that none of the provisions of the draft, in particular Articles 6 and 7, should be interpreted by states in such a way as to be detrimental to the situation and treatment of children who must be granted the same rights and status.

7.         The Assembly is concerned that many states where conscription still exists have never signed the 1963 convention.  In view of the consequences inherent in the discharge of military obligations in many states, particularly in matters of inheritance, it encourages states to sign and ratify Chapter VII of the present draft convention which covers military obligations in cases of multiple nationality.

8.         The Assembly recalls its Recommendation 1223 (1993) on reservations made by member states to Council of Europe conventions in which it considered it "advisable and even necessary that the number of reservations made in respect of Council of Europe conventions be considerably reduced".  Once again, the Assembly notes that there is too much leeway for states in the choice of applicable provisions, to the detriment of the ambition, coherence and effectiveness of the convention and the necessary harmonisation of national legislations.

9.         Consequently, it would like to see the future states Parties commit themselves with greater determination and recommends that member states sign and ratify the Convention as soon as possible and make the strict minimum of reservations.

10.        The Assembly invites the Committee of Ministers to adopt the draft convention without delay, and, with a view to improving its provisions, recommends the adoption of the following amendments:

i.          change Article 5, paragraph 1 as follows: "the rules of a state Party on nationality shall not contain distinctions, or allow any practice, which amount to discrimination on the grounds of sex, religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, or membership of a national minority, or lead to discrimination between the official languages of the state";

ii.          add at the end of Article 5, paragraph 2: "or are candidates for naturalisation";

iii.         expand, in the explanatory report, the concept of "concealment of any relevant fact" appearing in Article 7.1.b to ensure that it is explained with sufficient precision;

iv.         delete sub-paragraph c of Article 7.1 or at least amend it as follows: "voluntary service in the military or police forces of another state with which it is at war";

v.         add to Article 22.a, in fine: "or who have been granted the status of conscientious objector";

vi.         amend Article 25, paragraph 1, as follows: "Any state whose domestic legislation does not require its nationals to fulfil military obligations may ...";

vii.        add to Article 29, paragraph 1, in fine: "The maximum validity of reservations is set at ten years".

11.        Furthermore, the Assembly feels compelled to express its reservations in respect of certain provisions which it considers too simplistic, particularly with regard to state succession and co-operation between states.

12.        It considers that the provisions relating to state succession (chapter VI) should be further developed drawing on the work of the European Commission for Democracy through Law, and that it is particularly essential to broaden the scope of the guarantees and rights of nationals of predecessor states who should enjoy political and social rights and an "effective remedy" against deprival or withdrawal of, or refusal to grant nationality.

13.        The Assembly applauds the effort of co-operation which took place in the background while the draft convention was being prepared, in the context of the Demo-Droit programme on nationality issues for central and east European states, and the efforts of the Committee of Experts on Nationality to collect information and produce documentation.  It recommends that the Committee of Ministers pursue assistance to the countries of central and eastern Europe, in particular the programmes relating to citizenship and legislative reform.

14.        It therefore invites the Committee of Ministers to pursue the efforts undertaken and calls for the setting up of a permanent structure in the Council of Europe on questions of nationality, responsible for gathering the necessary information on developments in the legislation of member states and advising them on any planned amendments.

15.        The Assembly invites the Committee of Ministers to adopt a more proactive approach and to broaden the future scope of its deliberations, in particular by extending the terms of reference of the Committee of Experts on Nationality.  In addition to the very topical issue of state succession, the Assembly questions the potential effects on the European Union of common citizenship, and the scope of community law on nationality issues.

II. Explanatory memorandum

by Mr FOGAS

A. Introduction

1.         The Council of Europe has worked in the field of nationality for almost thirty‑five years. Its work is of the highest political importance, because of the considerable prerogatives states enjoy in this field, which affects their sovereignty in its very essence. The variety of approaches from one country to another, and the multiple facets and repercussions of nationality issues, make any attempt at analysis or summary a delicate process.

2.         The Committee of Experts on Nationality (CJ-NA) of the Council of Europe was instructed in June 1993 to draw up a new European Convention on nationality. A declassified draft was first produced in February 1995. The final version of the draft convention was adopted in July 1996 by the committee of experts and then submitted to the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) for approval at its meeting from 26 to 29 November 1996, before being transmitted to the Committee of Ministers for final adoption. The opinions of the Parliamentary Assembly, the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), the European Committee on Migration (CDMG) and the Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law (CAHDI) have been sounded.

3.         The Assembly welcomes the excellent co-operation which has taken place between its Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Committee of Experts.  The former wished to discuss the draft convention with the experts, and invited Mr Schaerer, Chairman of the CJ-NA Working Party, to present the main provisions of the draft convention at its meeting on 2 September 1996 in Paris.  The Rapporteurs from the Committee of Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography were also able to attend the meetings of the CJ-NA and the CDCJ and put forward their points of view. Lastly, the Committee held an exchange of views with Mr Hack, Permanent Representative of Austria to the Council of Europe and Chairman of the CJ-NA, at its meeting on 16 December 1996 in Paris.

4.         At its meeting on 6 November 1996, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights examined the observations on the draft convention presented by Mr Severin, former Rapporteur.  These observations were submitted to the CDCJ at its meeting of 26 November 1996.  Since the CDCJ has taken account of a number of the proposed amendments, the Assembly cannot but express its extreme satisfaction.

5.         The first part of the explanatory memorandum focuses on summarising the aims and content of previous instruments concerning nationality. The second part presents the main provisions of the draft convention, which call for a number of remarks by the Assembly. The amendments proposed will be developed in the third part, and finally a number of questions evidently requiring further examination by the Committee of Ministers will be highlighted.

B. Context

6.         The 1963 Convention on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and on Military Obligations in Cases of Multiple Nationality[2] settled a number of questions concerning nationality in its day. It was based on a simple hypothesis: dual nationality is not desirable and should be avoided if at all possible.

7.         The 1963 Convention stipulated that:

            �        persons who acquire voluntarily another nationality shall lose their former nationality and shall not be authorised to retain their former nationality;

            �        persons who possess ex lege more than one nationality may renounce the nationality of the country in which they do not habitually reside;

            �        persons possessing the nationality of two or more states shall be required to fulfil their military obligations in relation to one of those states only.

8.         However, certain aspects of dual nationality have become increasingly important.  Amended accordingly by the 2nd Protocol in 1993, the 1963 Convention thus eventually came round to acknowledging the need, on the contrary, for people to have the possibility to conserve their nationality of origin in certain cases:

            �        in cases of mixed marriages between people of different nationalities, the 1993 Protocol provides for the spouse who acquires the nationality of the other to conserve his or her nationality of origin,[3] and for their children to acquire the nationality of both parents;[4]

            �        furthermore, some relaxation of the 1963 Convention was needed to provide for the integration of populations permanently resident in European countries, particularly second-generation immigrants born or brought up in the country of residence[5]. For many immigrants and their children the prospect of automatically losing their nationality of origin is often a deterrent when it comes to applying for the nationality of the country of residence. But acquiring the nationality of the receiving country, with the full participation in political life which this entails, is a decisive factor in the integration of immigrant populations.

9.         Numerous problems connected with nationality, however, were left unsolved by the 1963 Convention and its Protocols. The context in which the 1963 Convention was penned has changed considerably, in terms both of the migration trends in western Europe and of the democratic changes that have come about in central and eastern Europe. It is too restrictive for some countries, as they consider it adopts an out-of-date stance that focuses on multiple nationality issues and fails to take into account either the new situation facing western societies or the new laws which have been adopted by the countries of central and eastern Europe which have recently joined the Council of Europe.

10.        It rapidly became clear to the experts that what was needed was not a new protocol amending the 1963 Convention dealing only with certain aspects relating to nationality, but a more comprehensive convention, allowing for every aspect of the question, and in particular:

            �        the status of stateless persons: the draft convention represents a major contribution to the prevention of statelessness in Europe, in an effort to limit the number of cases of statelessness and if possible to eradicate it altogether; the experts stress the need to attach stateless persons to a state, especially stateless children born in Council of Europe member states;

            �        the status of permanent residents from countries which have ceased to exist or have acquired independence, ie the question of nationality in the event of state succession;

            �        the status of persons with multiple nationality, particularly with regard to military obligations;

            �        the question of refugees;[6]

            �        and the more recurrent question of migrant workers.[7]

C. General characteristics of the draft European convention on nationality

11.        The committee of experts has done a remarkable and exhaustive job, making a thorough examination of the national legislations of member states on questions of nationality.

12.        The draft convention strives to clarify and address every dimension of the issue, and above all to embody a variety of principles in a single text: the right to a nationality, non-discrimination in the acquisition of a nationality, non-discrimination between nationals of the same state, prevention of statelessness, multiple nationality. It is a determined effort to brush the dust off the 1963 Convention and take into account the institutional and legal developments in the countries of central and eastern Europe since 1989, and the major changes to their legislation.

1.         Object and provisions of the draft convention

13.        The object of the draft convention as set forth in Article 1 is to establish "principles and rules relating to the nationality of natural persons and rules regulating military obligations in cases of multiple nationality, to which the internal law of states Parties shall conform". The purpose of the convention is to establish minimum common standards in the field of nationality, through definitions, a number of general principles (Chapter II) and a series of more detailed rules (Chapter III) which make up the framework provisions.  On several occasions the experts have stressed that the future convention should be a European standard, a reference for all the member states on questions of nationality.

14.        The draft convention comprises ten chapters, which include:

            �        common definitions (Chapter I - Article 2);

            �        some general principles relating to nationality (Chapter II): the right to a nationality and above all the principle of non-discrimination (Article 5);

            �        rules (Chapter III - Articles 6 to 9) and procedures (Chapter IV - Articles 10 to 13) relating to nationality: acquisition, loss and recovery of nationality;

            �        rules applicable to different cases of multiple nationality (Chapter V) and on military obligations in cases of multiple nationality (Chapter VII);

            �        the principles governing nationality in the event of state succession (Chapter VI);

            �        the principles of and arrangements for co-operation between national authorities (Chapter VIII).

15.        The Assembly cannot but subscribe both to the approach adopted and to the concern shown by the experts to prevent statelessness in so far as is possible, particularly by limiting the possibilities of withdrawing nationality. It also subscribes to the rules set forth in Chapter III of the draft convention with a view to facilitating the acquisition of nationality, and in particular the possibility for people with a genuine link with a state Party to acquire its nationality, and designed also to facilitate recovery of one's nationality of origin, to limit the possibility of loss of nationality to certain duly justified cases, to guarantee fair and due process and to make sure that persons with more than one nationality are required to fulfil their military obligations in only one state. The Assembly notes in particular that Chapter III Article 6-3 on the acquisition of nationality by naturalisation stipulates that the maximum required period of residence in the host country must not exceed ten years.

16.        The Assembly also welcomes the fact that the amendments proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in respect of Article 6.1.a and Article 6.2.b, both concerning the situation and treatment of children, have been accepted by the CDCJ.  The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights had referred in this respect to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children, particularly Articles 7 and 8, and felt that the draft convention should under no circumstances undermine the status of children, who should be entitled to the same treatment and rights, or make them more vulnerable.  The Assembly considers that a progressive approach to children's rights should be adopted.  In this respect, it recalls that one of the basic principles underlying the draft convention is the avoidance of statelessness and that all the provisions of Article 7 should be read in the light of Article 4, in particular those concerning children in paragraph 2.

17.        The Assembly also notes that Chapter V of the new convention is worded in such a way as to remain neutral with regard to the question of dual nationality. Whereas the 1963 Convention aimed at avoiding multiple nationality, Article 14 of the latest draft establishes that dual nationality is acceptable, and that in certain circumstances the granting of dual nationality should be authorised, while at the same time providing for those states which so desire, such as Germany, for example, to be able to discourage dual nationality. However, Article 16 of the draft convention stipulates that "a state Party shall not make the renunciation or loss of another nationality a condition for the acquisition or retention of its nationality where such renunciation or loss is not possible or cannot reasonably be required".

18.        The provisions of Chapter IV meet with the full approval of the Assembly. The experts agreed that procedures for the acquisition, conservation, recovery or loss of nationality needed to be more flexible and at the same time more rigorous, for example:

            �        shorter formalities and the processing of applications "within a reasonable time";

            �        not unreasonable administrative fees for the acquisition, retention, loss or recovery of nationality;

            �        statement in writing of the reasons for decisions reached;

            �        provision for an administrative or judicial review of decisions taken.

2.         Implementation of the future convention

19.        This convention is not designed to replace the 1963 Convention or its Protocols, which are compatible with it.

20.        States have the possibility of making a declaration excluding Chapter VII on military obligations in cases of multiple nationality from the application of the convention, since the provisions contained therein are not necessarily relevant to all states.

21.        The Assembly welcomes the fact that the draft convention is open to signature not only by Council of Europe member states but also by the non-member states which participated in its elaboration, such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia or Kyrgyzstan. The Committee of Ministers may also invite any non-member state of the Council of Europe which has not participated in its elaboration to adhere to this Convention.

22.        The Convention will enter into force three months after its ratification by three member states. The Assembly cannot but express its satisfaction on this point, since a smaller number of ratifications ensures that the implementation of the Convention will not be unnecessarily delayed.

23.        There is broad scope for states to express reservations upon signing the convention, but no reservations may be made to any of the provisions contained in Chapters I, II and VI. Any other reservations expressed must be compatible with the object and purpose of the convention.

D. Proposed amendments

24.        All in all the Assembly welcomes the draft convention for its clarity and intelligibility. However, while the Assembly generally subscribes to the principles and rules set forth in the draft convention, it does feel obliged to express certain reservations regarding one or two provisions. These reservations were examined by the CDCJ during its meeting on 28-29 November 1996, and were not taken into consideration.

1.         Concerning Article 5 (Chapter II)

25.        While it welcomes the existence in the draft convention of a non-discrimination clause, the Assembly has misgivings about the rather piecemeal and ambiguous wording of Article 5.

26.        In particular, the Assembly expresses its regret that the CDCJ felt it advisable to amend the preamble of the draft convention, deleting the explicit reference to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which appeared in the initial draft, and replacing it with a vague form of words. It would be desirable that the draft convention went at least as far as Article 14 of the ECHR, and that the wording of Article 5 of the draft convention mirrored the former.

27.        The Assembly is surprised that Article 5 does not explicitly mention language or membership of a national minority as grounds for discrimination. Even if the explanatory report clarifies this point, the Committee feels that the wording of Article 5 itself should include these fundamental notions, which are additional grounds for discrimination rather than mere "distinctions". 

28.        The experts appear to have deemed that the expression "national or ethnic origin" covers language origin also. The fact that numerous legislations on naturalisation call for a degree of knowledge of a national language is not a justification for excluding the language criterion from the non-discrimination clause. Testing a person's command of the official language of the country is one thing, but denying a person the right to nationality simply because their mother tongue is different, without even bothering to verify their command of the national language, is another matter altogether. Furthermore, if it were admissible that the legislation of State Parties demanded the knowledge of the national language as a condition for naturalisation, this could not amount to the establishment of discrimination in favour of the majority language in multilingual States with several official languages.

29.        The Assembly therefore proposes the following wording for Article 5: "the rules of a state Party on nationality shall not contain distinctions, or allow practice, which amount to discrimination on the grounds of sex, religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, or membership of a national minority, or lead to discrimination between the official languages of the state".

2.         Concerning Chapter III

            - Article 7.1.b

30.        The Assembly notes that the notion of "concealment of any relevant fact", given here as a ground for loss of nationality, is insufficiently explained in the explanatory report.  It would like the explanatory report to be expanded so as to incorporate a more precise definition of this notion.

            - Article 7.1.c

31.        The Assembly is strongly opposed to the provision in Article 7.1.c stipulating that a state Party may provide in its internal law for the loss of its nationality ex lege or at its own initiative in the event of voluntary service in a foreign military force.  This provision is not only perfectly unacceptable per se, but it also ties in with the hypothesis in sub-paragraph d ("conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State Party"), and furthermore it is clearly in contradiction with Article 4.a, b, c.

32.        The Assembly therefore suggests deleting paragraph c or at least amending it to read as follows: "... voluntary service in the military or police forces of another state with which it is at war".

3.         Concerning Chapter VII

33.        This chapter on military obligations in cases of multiple nationality is a carbon copy of Chapter II of the 1963 Convention (Article 21) and the 1977 Protocol (Article 22).  The experts felt the need to rekindle interest in these questions among the new member states. It is surprising, however, that they should have deemed that the 1963 Convention had not grown somewhat obsolete in over thirty years. Many young people today are very concerned about their military obligations and the consequences of dual nationality.  One member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights pointed out that a Turkish national has no right to inherit anything in Turkey if he does not do his military service there. Since many states which practise conscription never signed the initial 1963 Convention, the Assembly has its doubts about their readiness to be bound by the present convention. 

34.        It should also be borne in mind that most states have by now given up conscription as such, or are in the process of doing so, and in those countries where it still exists, civilian alternatives have been introduced. Furthermore, certain states recognise conscientious objectors and have acknowledged conscientious objector status.

35.        The Assembly would therefore like Article 22 of the convention to be amended along more up-to-date, more forceful lines, and urges the committee of experts to include the notion of conscientious objection in Article 22.

36.        Finally, the Assembly finds it regrettable that states should have the possibility of making reservations concerning the application of Chapter VII, or declaring by virtue of the provisions of Article 25-1 of Chapter IX that they exclude Chapter VII from the application of the convention.

4.         Provisions concerning possible reservations by states Parties

37.        In its Recommendation 1223 (1993) on reservations made by member states to Council of Europe conventions, the Assembly recalled that although reservations � ie the possibility not to be bound by certain provisions � simplified the accession of states to certain Council of Europe conventions and helped to ensure maximum participation by contracting states, they also impaired the integrity, the coherency and the force of the conventions, which might consequently "fall short of the goal of harmonising and unifying the law", since the contracting states were no longer bound by the same international undertakings. The Assembly considered that it was "advisable and even necessary that the number of reservations made in respect of Council of Europe conventions be considerably reduced", and recommended inter alia that the Committee of Ministers "limit the validity of reservations to a maximum period of ten years".

38.        The draft convention is very flexible in respect of the reservations which states Parties may make. States may "make one or more reservations ... as long as they are compatible with the object and purpose of the present convention". Once again the Assembly notes that there is too much leeway for states to express reservations, and that the desire to achieve as many ratifications as possible takes precedence over the ambition and the effectiveness of the convention. The Assembly subscribes in part to Article 31, in so far as no reservations may be made to Chapters I, II and VI, but it would like to see the future states Parties commit themselves with greater determination. The Assembly proposes that paragraph 1 of Article 29 sets the maximum validity of reservations at 10 years.

39.        The Assembly notes that all its amendments were submitted to the CDCJ at its last meeting, and regrets that they were all rejected.

5.         Concerning the notion of nationality

40. It should be specified that the Rapporteur proposed an amendment which requested that the title of the draft convention be changed to "Convention on citizenship", and that the word "nationality" be replaced by the term "citizenship" throughout, since the former term is used in several states as the equivalent of "nationality". This proposed amendment was rejected by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which did not support its Rapporteur.

41.        The Rapporteur pointed out that, in fact, nationality is essentially a western concept, the meaning of which is highly nebulous and theoretical for the states of central and eastern Europe. In so far as the term "citizenship" is used in all the countries of Europe to mean the same thing, while the term "nationality" is a source of misunderstanding, since its meaning differs from one state to another, particularly in those states with strong "national" minorities, the Rapporteur thought it wiser to call the instrument "the Convention on citizenship", to avoid confusion.

42.        From the outset the committee of experts considered that there was no difference between the terms "nationality" and "citizenship", which are synonymous, with exactly the same meaning and are used indiscriminately in member states to signify the same thing. While aware that the term "nationality" is not really appropriate and might meet with the disapproval of some potential parties to the convention, the experts decided to make no basic distinction between the two terms, with a view to forestalling any problems in this respect. They particularly wanted to emphasise the absence of any ethnic consideration from the term "nationality", and thus agreed that nationality is "the legal bond between a person and a state and does not indicate the person's ethnic origin" (Article 2.a).

E. Questions that warrant further development

43.        The Assembly feels that certain questions deserve more thorough examination.  It therefore invites the Committee of Ministers and its Committee of Experts CJ-NA to go further and broaden the future scope of their deliberations.  Even now the draft convention could be further developed on at least 3 counts:

1.         State succession (Chapter VI)

44.        Chapter VI on state succession is singularly lacking both in ambition; it contains no precise rules and is far too general. It seems to be based on the requirements of new or future members. Basic principles are set forth, but much is left to the discretion of the states. The provisions concerning state succession are reduced to their simplest form of expression, compared with the much bolder spirit initially displayed. The Assembly feels that a definition explaining the different forms of state succession and the features they share in common might have been included. Such a definition is essential to clarify the situation of the states of central and eastern Europe which have emerged since 1989, and to make the obligations incumbent on them clear.

45.        It is essential to show more determination in the draft convention, particularly with regard to the guarantees and rights of nationals of predecessor states (Article 20), who should enjoy political and social rights, for example.

46.        The Assembly notes that the European Commission for Democracy through Law ("Venice Commission") finalised and adopted a report on the effects of state succession on nationality, together with a declaration, at its meeting on 13 and 14 September 1996. The CJ-NA sent representatives on several occasions in 1995 and 1996 to meetings of the Venice Commission when it was examining its draft report. The "Declaration on state succession and the impact on the nationality of natural persons" which the Venice Commission adopted is perfectly compatible with the draft convention; its provisions � in particular the definition of state succession and certain principles (the notion of "effective remedy" against deprival or withdrawal of, or refusal to grant nationality) could be usefully included. Finally, the Assembly would appreciate it if the CJ-NA, in its future work, could focus on the questions related to state succession, in particular in as far as rights and guarantees of persons are concerned.

2.         International co-operation (Chapter VIII)

47.        The chapter on co-operation between states on questions of nationality also merits further development: in rather concise terms, further details concerning arrangements for such co-operation seem indispensable. If the purpose of the draft convention is to formalise what already exists, it would be a pity for it to pass over the structures and methods in silence.

48.        The Assembly applauds the effort of co-operation that went on in the background while the draft convention was being prepared, in the context of the D�mo‑Droit programme on nationality issues for central and eastern European states.  Working meetings and exchanges of views on the promotion of principles and rules on nationality and the harmonisation of national legislations were held with a number of countries (Armenia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", the Czech Republic, Ukraine, etc.). Credit must also go to the Committee of Experts on Nationality for its efforts to collect information and gather documentation, and for its direct contribution to the preparation of a number of national legal texts.

49.        Such efforts deserve to be followed up, which could be done by adopting the principle of a permanent structure in the Council of Europe on questions of nationality, responsible not only for gathering information concerning changes in the legislation of the member countries, but also for advising them on planned amendments to the existing law. 

3.         European citizenship

50.        The Assembly is curious about the potential effects on the European Union of common citizenship, and regrets that the work initiated by the CJ-NA in this field in 1994 has not been completed, particularly in respect of the scope of Community law and its foreseeable evolution. Indeed, the new convention could quickly become obsolete if the Union were to broaden its powers in the field of common citizenship, or to increase the rights of citizens of the Union, in accordance with the principles set forth in Article B and Articles 8 to 8.e of the Treaty of Maastricht. The Assembly fully supports the principle of extending the terms of reference of the Committee of Experts on Nationality, and would like to see the CJ‑NA examine developments in respect of citizenship of the Union under its new terms of reference.

F. Conclusion

51.        The Assembly welcomes the draft European convention on nationality and the principles and rules which are promoted in it. Considerable progress has been made to avoid statelessness and to harmonise national legislations on a common basis.

52.        However, the draft convention lacks ambition on certain questions, and its provisions in connection with state succession and co-operation between participating states are too scanty. It would therefore appear that the chapters concerned � Chapters VI and VIII � could usefully be amended, together with a number of other provisions.  Furthermore, to ensure the proper implementation of the convention, it is essential to limit both the scope and the duration of any reservations which states may decide to make.

53.        The Assembly invites the Committee of Ministers to adopt the draft Convention as soon as possible, and to accept the suggested amendments.

Reporting committee: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none.

Reference to committee: Doc. 7665 and Reference No. 2108 of 27 September 1996.

Draft opinion unanimously adopted by the committee on 20 January 1997.

Members of the committee: Mr Hag�rd (Chairperson), Mr Schwimmer,Mrs Err (Vice-Chairpersons), Mrs Aguiar, MM Ak�ali, Alexander, Bartumeu Cassany, Berti, Besostri, Bindig, Bobelis, Bu_ar, Cimoszewicz, Clerfayt, Columberg, Contestabile, Deasy (Alternate: Connolly), Dees (Alternate: Jurgens), Deniau, Fenech, Filimonov, Foga�, Mrs Frimansd�ttir, MM Frunda, Fuhrmann, Fyodorov, Mrs Gelderblom-Lankhout, MM Guenov, G�rel, Mrs Holand, MM Holovatiy (Alternate: Kostytsky), Hunault, Jansson, Jaskiernia, Jeambrun, Kelam, Kirkhill, Koschyk, Kovacevic, Kovalev, Kyprianou (Alternate: Christodoulides), Loutfi, Magnusson, Martins, M�sz�ros, Micheloyiannis, Moeller, N�meth, Mrs Novesk�, MM Pantelejevs, Pollo, Polydoras, Poppe, Prokop (Alternate: Plechat�), Rathbone, Rhinow, Robles Fraga, Rodeghiero, Severin, Sol� Tura, Solonari, Stretovych, Tahiri, Weyts, Mrs Wohlwend.

N.B. The names of those members who took part in the vote are printed in italics.

Secretaries to the committee: Mr Plate, Ms Chatzivassiliou, Ms Kleinsorge and Ms Clamer.

[1]. By the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

[2]. Convention of 6 May 1963 (ETS No. 43); amending and additional protocols of 24 November 1977 (ETS No. 95 and 96); 2nd Protocol amending the convention, dated 2 February 1993 (ETS No. 149).

[3]. See Resolution (77) 12 of the Committee of Ministers on the nationality of spouses of different nationalities, and also Parliamentary Assembly Recommendations 519 (1968) on the nationality of married women, and 1081 (1988) on problems of nationality in mixed marriages.

[4]. See Resolution (77) 13 of the Committee of Ministers on the nationality of children born in wedlock.

[5]. See Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 841 (1978) and Recommendation R (84) 9 of the Committee of Ministers, both on second-generation migrants.

[6]. See Committee of Ministers Recommendation No. R (84) 21 and Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 984 (1984) on the acquisition by refugees of the nationality of the receiving country.

[7]. See Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 915 (1981) on the situation of migrant workers in the host countries.