7. Il est vrai qu’une telle mesure

7. Il est vrai qu’une telle mesure aurait une portée pratique limitée.
D’abord, la perspective d’une éventuelle déchéance de la nationalité française aurait sans doute peu d’effet dissuasif sur les personnes décidées à commettre les infractions mentionnées par le projet.
Ensuite, une telle sanction ne pourrait frapper qu’un nombre limité de personnes, car elle ne saurait être prononcée qu’à l'encontre d’individus ayant commis des infractions particulièrement graves, eu égard au principe de nécessité et de proportionnalité des peines.
Enfin, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme pourrait, ainsi qu’il vient d’être dit au point 6, juger que, dans certains cas, la déchéance de la nationalité française ou l’expulsion de la personne ainsi sanctionnée porte une atteinte excessive à sa vie privée ou familiale ou qu’elle expose cette personne à subir des traitements inhumains ou dégradants (au sens de l’article 3 de la convention européenne des droits de l’homme ) dans l’Etat dont elle aurait conservé la nationalité, comme la Cour l’a jugé par un arrêt Daoudi c. France du 3 décembre 2009 (n° 19576/08).

結果 (英語) 1:

7. it is true that such a measure would be limited in practical scope.First, the prospect of a possible deprivation of French nationality would probably have little deterrent effect on individuals decided to commit the offences referred to by the project.Then, such a sanction could only affects a limited number of people, because it cannot be pronounced only against individuals who committed particularly serious offences, with respect to the principle of necessity and proportionality of sentences.Finally, the European Court of human rights could, as it has been said in point 6, declare that, in some cases, the deprivation of French nationality or the expulsion of the person thus punished carries excessive impairment of his private or family life or that it exposes that person to inhuman or degrading treatment (within the meaning of article 3 of the European convention on human rights) in the State that it would have retained the nationality as the Court held in a judgment Daniel v. France of 3 December 2009 (No. 19576/08).

結果 (英語) 2:

7. It is true that such a measure would have limited practical significance.
First, the prospect of eventual forfeiture of French nationality would probably have little deterrent effect on people determined to commit the offenses mentioned by the project.
Then, such a sanction could hit a limited number of people because it can only be imposed against individuals who have committed particularly serious offenses, with regard to the principle of necessity and proportionality of sentences.
Finally, the European Court of Human Rights could, as has been said in point 6, judging that in some cases, forfeiture of French nationality or the expulsion of the person sanctioned and bears a disproportionate interference with his private or family life or it exposes that person to suffer inhuman or degrading treatment (as defined in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights) in the State of which would retained the nationality, as the Court ruled by a Daoudi v. France of 3 December 2009 (No. 19576/08).

結果 (英語) 3:

7. it is true that such a measure would have limited practical significance. first of all, the possibility of a loss of nationality would probably have little deterrent effect on individuals decided to commit the offences referred to in the project. then, such a measure could hit a limited number of people.because it cannot be made to individuals who have committed particularly serious crimes, in accordance with the principle of necessity and proportionality of sentences. finally, the european court of human rights, as has been said in paragraph 6 that, in some cases.the loss of nationality or the expulsion of the person punished excessive damages his or her private life or family or the person that exposes the inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of article 3 of the european convention on human rights), in the state in which it has retained the nationality.as the court held in the judgment of 3 december 2009, b. v. france (no. 19576 / 08).