Revocation of citizenship was disproportionate and therefore invalid
Supreme Court judgment and order 13 February 2025, HR-2025-260-A, (case no. 24-057934SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against Borgarting Court of Appeal's judgment 12 February 2024.
The State represented by the Immigration Appeals Board (The Office of the Attorney General represented by Liv Inger Gjone Gabrielsen) v. A (Counsel Liv Cecilie Lyng)
The Supreme Court has ruled in two cases (HR-2025-260-A and HR-2025-261-A) regarding the validity of decisions to revoke citizenships. In both cases, the Supreme Court found that the revocations were disproportionate measures and therefore invalid under section 26 subsection 4 of the Citizenship Act.
In this case, a man was deprived of his citizenship because he had provided false information about his identity when he arrived in Norway in 1990. He claimed to be a stateless Palestinian, although he was a Jordanian citizen. The Supreme Court concluded that although it was serious to provide false information, his connection to Norway was so strong that it was a disproportionate measure to revoke his Norwegian citizenship. The Supreme Court particularly emphasised that the man had lived in Norway for over thirty years, had been a citizen for a long time, and was well integrated into Norwegian society.
The rulings provide guidance on assessing whether decisions to revoke citizenship are disproportionate under section 26 subsection 4 of the Citizenship Act.
Read the judgment from the Supreme Court (Norwegian only) (PDF)
Areas of law: Immigration law, public administration law, human rights
Key paragraphs: 63–66, 72–74, 80
Justices: Indreberg, Bergh, Sæther, Stenvik, Sivertsen