CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 27 April 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 13880/24 L.L. against Slovakia lodged on 2 May 2024 communicated on 8 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the loss of the applicant’s Slovak citizenship after he had acquired British citizenship on 7 February 2023 following the conclusion of a same-sex marriage on 28 August 2022. By a letter of 9   January 2024, the Slovak Ministry of Interior notified him that he cannot retain Slovak citizenship, as none of the exceptions laid down in the Law on State Citizenship applied to his situation. Under the said law, a person may hold dual citizenship if (i) he/she can prove that he/she obtained the citizenship of the other State after at least 5 years of lawful residence or (ii)   obtained the citizenship of another State due to conclusion of a marriage. Under the Slovak legal framework, a marriage is understood as a union between a man and a woman. The applicant did not challenge the letter of 9   January 2024 before any domestic authority, as he believed that no available remedy had any prospect of success, given the legal framework governing the matter. He asserts that the loss of the Slovak citizenship has interfered with his private life as he owns property in Slovakia, had always exercised his voting rights, has been engaged in advocacy activities in Slovakia promoting the rights of persons belonging to the LGBTI+ community. Moreover, by losing the citizenship of a country which is a member of the European Union (“EU”), he cannot settle and work freely in Slovakia, his home country, or in other EU countries. The applicant raises complaints under Article 8 taken alone and together with Articles 13 and   14 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 8 of the Convention taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2 ( see Usmanov v. Russia , no. 43936/18, §§ 53 and 63-65, 22   December 2020)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   4.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of his sexual orientation, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8?