Introduction

Two complaints were brought before the United Nations Human Rights Committee concerning the denial of Italian citizenship. In both cases – M.A.S. and I.E.J. v. Italy and A.Y.O.AQ v. Italy –  the applicants, Jordanian nationals and long-term residents of Italy who met the legal requirements to apply for citizenship, alleged violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) following the rejection of their naturalisation requests.

The legal issues raised include the right to privacy and family life, the principle of non-discrimination, the presumption of innocence, and the right to an effective remedy within a reasonable time. Central to both complaints is the argument that the applicants were denied citizenship not due to their own conduct but based on considerations involving their spouses.

Although the Committee ultimately found the complaints inadmissible due to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the cases highlight important procedural and substantive concerns regarding the implementation of citizenship laws in light of international human rights standards. 

Case 1: M.A.S. and I.E.J. v. Italy

On 3 May 2018, M.A.S. and I.E.J., both nationals of Jordan living in Italy for decades, applied to the Human Rights Committee due to the denial of an application for citizenship. 

The authors claimed that the Ministry of Interior violated Articles 14 (2) (presumption of innocence), 17 (which protects against arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, and home), and 26 (which guarantees equality before the law and protection against discrimination) of the Covenant, and articles 2 and 5 (2) (b)  of the First Optional Protocol.  

M.A.S. is the wife of I.E.J.; she applied for Italian citizenship on 12 March 2010. On 3 February 2014, she received a denial letter from the Ministry of the Interior. The rejection was motivated with reference to the “particularly severe criminal proceedings” pending against her husband, which were an “indication of untrustworthiness” and a lack of “complete integration into the national community”. In May 2014, she appealed to the Regional Administrative Tribunal for Lazio-Rome, arguing that  “the denial of her application based on her husband’s circumstances was discriminatory” as it did not take into account facts about her.  

She considered this denial to be gender-based discrimination and a violation by the Ministry (Italy)  of the principle of equality contained in Article 26 of the Covenant. This article “does not allow a State party to deny her citizenship on the sole basis that she is married to her husband (I.E.J.)”. The author stated that if she had not been married to her husband, the Ministry of the Interior would have granted her Italian citizenship, as she complied with all other requirements. By not considering her personal circumstances, the Ministry violated the right to respect for private and family life, as covered by Article 17 of the Covenant. Moreover, she claimed that the process was unreasonably prolonged.

I.E.J.’s applications were denied by the Ministry three times on the ground that his activities had “purposes not compatible with the security of the Republic”. His first application was filed on 23 December 2004, and he received the denial letter on 22 June 2015. The author filed an extraordinary appeal to the higher administrative authority, and on 19 October 2017, he obtained the annulment of the denial. He then started a second procedure while facing criminal charges for “misappropriation” and for practising as a doctor without a title. The Ministry did not take into consideration the President’s decision and the acquittal for abusive practising issued by the Court of Appeal of Brescia, and sent a second denial letter on 14 December 2017. I.E.J claimed that the denial based on a pending criminal trial, the one for misappropriation, violated the presumption of innocence under article 14 (2) of the Covenant. He also maintained that the rejection of his application, despite the successful outcome of his extraordinary administrative recourse, constituted a violation of Article 17 of the Covenant. 

Later, in 2018, the Ministry admitted its mistake about the unauthorised practising, but still denied citizenship for the third time.

Case 2: A.Y.O.AQ v. Italy

A.Y.O.AQ, also a Jordan national, applied for Italian citizenship in 2014 – at that time, she had been living in Italy since 1999 and was working as a university professor. Despite meeting all legal requirements, her application was denied in 2016 based on her husband’s alleged involvement in activities considered incompatible with Italy’s national security. 

The applicant argued that the decision mainly violated her rights under Articles 17 and 26 ICCPR. In her communication, she emphasised that her request was assessed solely based on her husband’s alleged actions, assuming that the stability and duration of her marriage to him could facilitate “dangerous” behavior. A.Y.O.AQ further claims that the refusal of her application did not refer to any facts relating to her personally, and that she was neither consulted or interviewed at any stage of the process. 

The author decided to submit her complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee due to an "unreasonably prolonged" delay in the Regional Administrative Tribunal of Lazio-Rome appeal, in accordance with Article 5(2)(b) of the Optional Protocol I. She further stated that, in light of the Italian case law in this matter, no effective domestic remedies remain available and that no other international investigation or settlement procedure has been commenced.

Legal Arguments 

In both cases the complaints argued that: 

• The decisions infringed on the authors’ right to privacy and family life (Article 17 ICCPR);
• Female authors faced discrimination based on marital status and gender (Article 26 ICCPR);
• The principle of presumption of innocence was also violated (Article 14(2) ICCPR);
• The appeals process suffered from unreasonable delays (Article 5(2)(b) Optional Protocol I). 

In both situations, the Italian authorities relied heavily on security considerations tied to their spouses without concrete evidence of personal wrongdoing. 

Italy’s response

In both cases, the Italian government justified its decisions by invoking its broad discretionary powers concerning the granting of citizenship. The authorities argued that safeguarding national security prevails over individual claims for citizenship, especially when there are concerns regarding the applicant’s reliability or potential risk to public order. 

Additionally, Italy asserted that the complaints had access to effective legal remedies within its domestic judicial system and that any delays encountered in the proceedings were not exclusively attributable to the judicial system but by procedural actions and choices made by the claimants  themselves. 

In the case of M.A.S. and I.E.J. v. Italy, the State party argued that the authors had not exhausted all the domestic remedies due to the possibility to appeal to the Council of State against the Lazio-Rome regional tribunal’s decision. Considering the complaint’s unreasonable and discriminatory delays, Italy claimed that there were no unreasonable delays in the authors' appeals procedure and this procedure is based on the chronological order of submissions and cannot be accelerated. In addition, the state party stated that M.A.S. showed "partial inertia” because after her appeal in May 2014 until November 2017 she did not take any active steps to expedite the case.

Regarding I.E.J., he does not appeal further after his third denial, arguing that the President already ruled in his favor. 

UN Human Rights Committee Findings

The Human Rights Committee declared the cases inadmissible due to the non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies since the authors could still submit an appeal to the Council of State, the highest administrative court. The Committee recalled its jurisprudence that mere doubts about the effectiveness of domestic remedies do not absolve authors of the requirement to exhaust them.

The Committee acknowledged the challenges faced by the complaints, particularly about the duration of the appeals process and the reliance on their spouses’ activities to justify citizenship denial. However, the Committee also considered Italy’s argument regarding national security concerns and the discretion granted to state matters of citizenship matters. 

Although the Committee did not unequivocally side with the complainants on all claims, it expressed concerns over:

• The absence of personal consideration for the applicants separate from their spouses;
• the potential discriminatory application of citizenship laws;
• The prolonged delays in the judicial process, affecting the right to a fair and timely decision. 

Conclusion

The cases of M.A.S. and I.E.J. v. Italy and A.Y.O.AQ v. Italy highlight the complex intersection between national security considerations and human rights in citizenship applications. Even if the state retains the right to discretion in granting nationality, this grant should be applied in accordance with international human rights obligations. The Committee raised concerns about the absence of an individual assessment and the reliance on the alleged activities of the spouses. These concerns are related to potential discrimination and procedural unfairness.

In addition, these cases highlight the challenges the applicants face due to the lengthy administrative processes in citizenship applications. They also demonstrate the importance of compliance with procedural rules, such as the exhaustion of all national legal remedies, for admissibility before international bodies.