In 2022-23, by decrees of President Zelensky, a number of well-known people in Ukraine were deprived of Ukrainian citizenship.

 In all these cases, the decisions of the president were obliged to be based on Art. 19 of the Law «On Citizenship», the grounds for deprivation of citizenship can only be:

• voluntary acquisition by a citizen of Ukraine of the citizenship of another state, if at the time of such acquisition he has reached the age of majority;

• acquisition by a person of citizenship of Ukraine on the basis of Article 9 of the Law as a result of deceit, deliberate submission of false information or false documents;

• voluntary entry into the military service of another state, which, in accordance with the legislation of that state, is not conscription or alternative (non-military) service.

In addition, the Constitution of Ukraine contains a norm of direct action “A citizen of Ukraine cannot be deprived of citizenship and the right to change citizenship” (Article 24). This norm is interpreted by a number of constitutionalists as a prohibition for the state to deprive the citizenship acquired by birth.

By itself, the presidential decree on deprivation of citizenship should be based on the corresponding proposal of the Presidential Commission on Citizenship (Article 23 of the Law «On Citizenship»).

The Commission, in turn, makes a decision on the basis of submission by the territorial bodies of the State Migration Service of Ukraine, diplomatic missions or consular offices of Ukraine: a) submission of the loss of citizenship of Ukraine; b) a document confirming the stay of a person in the citizenship of Ukraine; c) one of the following documents:

— a document confirming the voluntary acquisition by a citizen of Ukraine of the citizenship of another state, together with a document confirming that at the time of such acquisition the citizen of Ukraine has reached the age of majority (in the case provided for in paragraph 1 of part one of Article 19 of the Law);

— a document confirming that a person has acquired citizenship of Ukraine on the basis of Article 9 of the Law as a result of fraud, deliberate submission of false information or false documents terminate foreign citizenship in accordance with paragraph one, paragraph 2, part two of Article 9 of the Law, did not submit a document on the termination of this citizenship, issued by the authorized body of the relevant state, to the authorized body of Ukraine within two years from the date of his acceptance into the citizenship of Ukraine, and there are no independent reasons for not receiving a document on the termination of foreign citizenship, information that at the time of admission to the citizenship of Ukraine there were grounds in the presence of which a person is not accepted into the citizenship of Ukraine; information about other false information and false documents submitted to confirm the fulfillment of the conditions for admission to the citizenship of Ukraine);

— a document confirming that a citizen of Ukraine voluntarily entered the military service of another state, which, in accordance with the legislation of this state, is not universal military duty or alternative (non-military) service;

d) a document confirming that a citizen of Ukraine will not become a stateless person as a result of losing citizenship of Ukraine. Such a document is not required in the case when the execution of documents on the termination of citizenship of Ukraine as a result of loss is carried out in accordance with the provisions of clause 2 of part one of 19 of the Law (clause 87 of the Regulations on the Citizenship Commission under the President of Ukraine).

In practice, events unfolded as follows.

On July 22, 2022, the media published information about the presidential decree on the termination of the citizenship of Vadim Rabinovich, co-chairman of the banned opposition party OPPL, businessman Igor Kolomoisky, and head of the territorial defense of Dnipro, Gennady Korban. Journalist, founder of the Our Money project Yuri Nikolov noted: “Perhaps this was revenge for speaking out against Prime Minister Shmyhal, who, by definition, is a creature of the President’s Office and on excellent terms with the head of the Presidential Office, Yermak. And just in recent weeks there was such an anti-premier quality initiated by the Filatov-Korban group. Statements about the impossibility of financing purchases, like that.”

In September 2022, 4 citizens of Ukraine were deprived of Ukrainian citizenship, who were publicly accused of organizing smuggling, among them the Bukovinian businessman Y. Kushnir. No evidence of these accusations in the form of relevant court decisions was given.

On January 10, 2023, a presidential decree was promulgated, according to which the Ukrainian citizenship of four people’s deputies was terminated: Viktor Medvedchuk, Andriy Derkach, Taras Kozak, Renat Kuzmin. The persons mentioned in this decree are Ukrainian politicians who are now allegedly suspected of high treason. Of course, there are no court verdicts confirming such suspicions. Before that, Ukraine generally qualified Medvedchuk for some unknown reason as a “prisoner of war” and exchanged him with Russia for servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Chairman of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union Yevgeny Zakharov speaks about the unlawfulness of such a decision by Zelensky: “The presidential decree on depriving Medvedchuk, Derkach, Kozak and Kuzmin of citizenship on the basis of materials from the SBU on the activities of these persons in favor of the aggressor country is contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine and is unacceptable in a rule of law state in which the principle of the rule of law operates”. The human rights activist calls this a case when “the activities of the law enforcement and judicial systems are replaced by administrative decisions. If these persons acted in favor of the aggressor state, then they need to present a reasonable suspicion of committing a crime, find evidence confirming such activities, draw up an indictment and prove their guilt in a competitive trial.

On February 4, 2023, it became known about the presidential decree on the termination of the citizenship of officials from the time of Yanukovych — ex-Minister of Internal Affairs V. Zakharchenko, ex-head of the Yanukovych Administration A. Klyuev, ex-head of the SBU A. Yakymenko, ex-minister of income and fees A Klimenko, ex-minister of education D. Tabachnik and five other people: deputy of the Odessa City Council from the Opposition Platform for Life V. Baransky, deputy of the Kharkiv Regional Council from the Opposition Platform for Life, son of ex-People’s Deputy D. Shentsev N. Shentsev, “occupier and collaborator” A. Gorbylev, as well as B. Klyuev, son of A. Klyuev, and V. Slab, a native of the Donetsk region. Neither collaborationism, nor service to Yanukovych, or origin from the South-East of Ukraine can legally be grounds for termination of citizenship.

In relation to the citizens of Ukraine, the normal and only legal and possible mechanism of punishment for committing crimes is the accusation of committing a crime, proving this fact in an adversarial trial and punishment by a court decision. However, over the past two years, indiscriminate deprivation of citizenship has de facto turned into an instrument of extrajudicial punishment for opponents of the current government.

In particular, the deprivation of citizenship has become one of the mechanisms used by the authorities in the fight against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

So, back in 2019, Bishop Gedeon of Makarovsky was deprived of citizenship, but at the same time he won a lawsuit in the District Administrative Court of Kyiv and achieved the return of citizenship.

At the end of December 2022, by decree of President No. 898/2022 dated December 28, 2022, the citizenship of the 13 Primate of the UOC, including Metropolitan of the Tulchinsky and Bratslavl Ionafan, Metropolitan of Chernivtsi and Bukovinsky Meletius, Metropolitan of the Romensky Joseph and Metropolitan of Dnepropetrovsky and Pavlogradsky, was terminated.

There are doubts whether all the documents required by law were provided when preparing the relevant presidential decree, as well as similar decrees regarding opposition politicians and businessmen, which were mentioned above. At least, no facts of the existence of such documents have been cited, and not a single proven fact of the commission by priests, politicians and businessmen deprived of citizenship of the violations listed at the beginning of this article has ever been cited.

In addition, on February 15, 2022, on the basis of Art. 21 of the Law of Ukraine «On Citizenship», the State Migration Service canceled the decision to acquire citizenship of two archbishops, a bishop and two metropolitans (including again Gideon).

It should be noted that in this case, the decision to acquire citizenship through the naturalization procedure is canceled and the reasons may be: “submission of false information or false documents, concealment by a person of any significant fact, in the presence of which a person cannot acquire citizenship of Ukraine, including failure to fulfill an obligation assumed by a person in an obligation to terminate foreign citizenship (nationality), in a declaration on renunciation of foreign citizenship or in a declaration of absence of foreign citizenship. At the same time, again, a package of documents should be prepared for these persons to the Presidential Commission on Citizenship. It is prepared by the State Migration Service of Ukraine, diplomatic or consular missions and must include: a) a submission on the cancellation of the decision to formalize the acquisition of citizenship of Ukraine;

b) documents confirming that a person acquired citizenship of Ukraine by territorial origin (Article 8 of the Law) or was restored to citizenship of Ukraine (Article 10 of the Law) by deceit, as a result of the submission of knowingly false information or false documents, concealment of any significant fact, if any which a person cannot acquire citizenship of Ukraine (certificate of the territorial body of the State Migration Service of Ukraine (SMS), diplomatic mission or consular institution that a foreigner who submitted an obligation to terminate foreign citizenship did not submit a document on the termination of this citizenship, issued by the authorized body of the relevant state, to the authorized body of Ukraine within two years from the date of registration as a citizen of Ukraine, and independent persons reasons for non-receipt of a document on the termination of foreign citizenship do not exist; information from the State Migration Service that a foreigner who submitted a declaration of renunciation of foreign citizenship did not return the passport of a foreign state to the authorized bodies of that state (part eight of Article 8 and part seven of Article 10); information that at the time of registration as a citizen of Ukraine there were grounds under which a person is not renewed in citizenship of Ukraine (parts one and two of Article 10, taking into account part five of Article 9 of the Law; part five of Article 10 of the Law); information about other false information and false documents submitted for the acquisition of Ukrainian citizenship in accordance with Articles 8 and 10 of the Law, or information about the concealment of any significant fact, in the presence of which a person cannot acquire Ukrainian citizenship in accordance with Articles 8 and 10 of the Law “On Citizenship of Ukraine” (p. 88 of the Regulations on the Citizenship Commission under the President of Ukraine).

Here again, there are legitimate reasons to doubt whether all these documents were provided and, accordingly, whether all relevant procedures were followed in preparing the relevant decision. In any case, the documents were not submitted.

In addition, according to the practice of the ECHR, when depriving a naturalized person of citizenship, when the basis is the submission of false data, there may be a violation of the requirements of Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The authorities must prove why the applicant’s failure to provide information was so serious as to justify the deprivation of citizenship several years after it was granted.

After analyzing the above facts, it is easy to see that numerous decisions on deprivation of citizenship, firstly, were taken with obvious violations of the current legislation of Ukraine, and, secondly, were applied against certain opponents of the current government.

All collected materials on this topic will be transferred to international human rights organizations, as well as published in the world press.

International Help Center for Ukrainians