Revocations of citizenships were disproportionate and therefore invalid

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.

This case involves a couple who came to Norway in 1990, claiming to be stateless Palestinians. They were granted Norwegian citizenship in 1997. Fifteen years later, it was revealed that they were in fact Jordanian citizens, prompting a process to revoke their Norwegian citizenship. The Supreme Court emphasised the seriousness of providing false information and noted that the couple actively obstructed the clarification of their identities. The situation was further aggravated by the fact that, in addition to being Norwegian citizens, they also used their Jordanian citizenships, including for travels to Jordan. Initially, the couple's acts were such that revoking their citizenship would not have been disproportionate. However, the lengthy processing time by Norwegian authorities must be given significant weight in assessing proportionality. It took almost eleven years from the preliminary notice of revocation in 2012 to the final decisions in 2023. Therefore, the decisions were disproportionate measures, although the case is a borderline one.

The judgments 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)

Justices: Indreberg, Bergh, Sæther, Stenvik, Sivertsen

Areas of law: Utlendingsrett, forvaltningsrett, menneskerettigheter

Key paragraphs: 63–65, 68, 72–76