2 of the Constitution. According to the contested decision it is not decisive whether the intent to lose citizenship of the Czech Republic was explicitly expressed, for if losing Czech citizenship is a legal consequence of the manifestation of intent to acquire citizenship of a foreign state, that manifestation of intent aimed at acquiring foreign citizenship always also contains a manifestation of intent aimed at losing Czech citizenship. . . . . . The cited Assembly publications emphasize that a basic principle applied in the draft law is the principle under which each citizen should have, if possible, the citizenship of only one state. This is based on an attempt to prevent problems connected with dual citizenship, both for the individual and for the state. This is based on the principle that individuals should have an opportunity, while observing requirements set by law, to acquire or lose the citizenship of the Czech Republic.
Maximum emphasis is placed on maintaining only one citizenship. . . . . .
The appellant first relies on Art. 2 of the Constitution, which states that no one may be deprived of his citizenship against his will. The purpose of the constitutional directive enshrined in Art. 2 of the Constitution, thus, was and is to prevent the possibility of the legislature adopting legal rules which would call for the deprivation of citizenship as a sanction for any illegal conduct by a citizen. In the present case, however, the criticized 17 of the Citizenship Act has a different aim, if it assumes that the citizen acted to acquire foreign citizenship on his own initiative.