1) This request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Council of State, Netherlands) concerns the interpretation of Articles 20 and 21 TFEU and Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

...

19) Lastly, although Article 7 of the Charter, concerning private and family life, may be relied on, the referring court considers that the Netherlands legislature does not appear to have acted arbitrarily in adopting Article 15(1)(c) of the Law on Netherlands nationality. However, in the view of the referring court, since it cannot be ruled out that the examination of compliance with the principle of proportionality may require each individual case to be examined, it is not clear whether or not a general statutory scheme such as the Law on Netherlands nationality is consistent with Articles 20 and 21 TFEU.

...

21) The Raad van State (Council of State) therefore decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘Must Articles 20 and 21 TFU, in the light of, inter alia, Article 7 of the [Charter], be interpreted — in view of the absence of an individual assessment, based on the principle of proportionality, with regard to the consequences of the loss of nationality for the situation of the person concerned from the point of view of EU law — as precluding legislation such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which provides:

(1) that an adult, who is also a national of a third country, loses, by operation of law, the nationality of his or her Member State, and consequently loses citizenship of the Union, on the ground that, for an uninterrupted period of 10 years, that person had his or her principal residence abroad and outside the European Union, although there are possibilities for interrupting that 10-year period;

(2) that under certain circumstances a minor loses, by operation of law, the nationality of his or her Member State, and consequently loses citizenship of the Union, as a consequence of the loss of the nationality of his or her parent, as referred to under (1) above?’

...

43) To conclude on this point, the applicability of Article 20 TFEU and therefore of EU law in the main proceedings necessarily means that the fundamental rights conferred by the Charter may be relied on by the applicants in the main proceedings, namely the right, mentioned by the referring court, to respect for private and family life, conferred by Article 7 of the Charter, and, in the case of Ms Duboux, the rights of the child under Article 24 of the Charter. As I have shown in earlier Opinions, the fundamental rights recognised by the Charter, which any authority of the Member States must respect when acting within the framework of EU law, are guaranteed to the addressees of the acts adopted by such an authority irrespective of any territorial criterion. ( 10 )

...

65) After finding that the situation in that case fell within the scope of EU law, the Court agreed to review whether or not the deprivation of the right to vote was consistent with the right conferred by Article 39(2) of the Charter, and, in particular, with the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 52(1) of the Charter.

66) In the context of examining the proportionality of the limitation on the right to vote, the Court held, first, that that limitation was proportionate in so far as it took into account the nature and gravity of the criminal offence committed and the duration of the penalty, noting that the deprivation of the right to vote was applicable, under the national legislation concerned, only to persons convicted of an offence punishable by a custodial sentence of between five years and life imprisonment. Secondly, the Court pointed out that the national law expressly provided for the possibility of convicted individuals applying for, and obtaining, the lifting of the penalty of loss of civic rights leading to the deprivation of the right to vote. The Court therefore concluded from this that the national legislation in question was not contrary to the principle of proportionality and held that Article 39(2) of the Charter did not preclude such legislation, which excluded, by operation of law, the category of citizens of the Union to which Mr Thierry Delvigne belonged from those entitled to vote in elections to the European Parliament.

...

116) Lastly, that conclusion is not affected by the need to ensure the right of every person to respect for his or her private and family life under Article 7 of the Charter.

...

118) Accordingly, I propose that the answer to the first part of the question from the referring court should be that Article 20 TFEU and Article 7 of the Charter do not preclude a legislative provision such as Article 15(1)(c) and (4) of the Law on Netherlands nationality, which provides that an adult, who is also a national of a third country, loses, by operation of law, the nationality of a Member State, and consequently loses citizenship of the Union, on the ground that, for an uninterrupted period of 10 years, that person had his or her principal residence abroad and outside the European Union.

...

124) Without going so far as to recognise the existence of such rights, the Netherlands Government stated several times in the observations it submitted in the present case that the objective of unity of nationality within the family must include taking into consideration the (best) interests of the child, as recognised in the context of the application of Article 7(2) of the European Convention on Nationality. ( 32 ) The Netherlands Government adds that the best interests of the child, enshrined in Article 24(2) of the Charter, ( 33 ) were moreover taken into account by the national legislature when it provided, in Article 16(2) of the Law on Netherlands nationality, for a number of exceptions to loss of nationality in the case of minors.

...

149) In the light of those considerations, I propose that the answer to the second part of the question from the referring court should be that Article 20 TFEU and Article 24 of the Charter preclude a legislative provision such as Article 16(1)(d) and (2) of the Law on Netherlands nationality, under which, save in exceptional cases, a minor loses, by operation of law, the nationality of his or her Member State and consequently loses citizenship of the Union, as a result of the loss of nationality by his or her parent.

...

157) For all the above considerations, I propose that the request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Council of State, Netherlands) should be answered as follows:

1. Article 20 TFEU and Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding a legislative provision such as Article 15(1)(c) and (4) of the Rijkswet op het Nederlanderschap (Law on Netherlands nationality), which provides that an adult, who is also a national of a third country, loses, by operation of law, the nationality of a Member State and consequently loses citizenship of the Union, on the ground that, for an uninterrupted period of 10 years, that person had his or her principal residence abroad and outside the European Union.
2. Article 20 TFEU and Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as precluding a legislative provision such as Article 16(1)(d) and (2) of the Law on Netherlands nationality, which provides that, save in exceptional cases, a minor, who is also a national of a third country, loses, by operation of law, the nationality of his or her Member State and consequently loses citizenship of the Union, as a consequence of the loss of nationality of his or her parent.