A stateless applicant attempted to naturalise in the Netherlands, but her request was rejected due to a minor criminal offence she committed less than 4 years prior to applying for naturalisation. She argued that her statelessness, along with a number of other mitigating circumstances of her case, should have been taken into account by the authorities to exercise the discretion to grant her Dutch nationality, but the Court upheld the administrative authorities' decision to deny naturalisation, leaving the applicant stateless.
The applicant, who is stateless, committed minor theft on 12 March 2013, for which she was sentenced to 18 hours community service. By 5 August 2013 she has served her community service sentence. She later applied for naturalisation, but her request was rejected in 2016, on the basis of there having been a criminal conviction against her within less than 4 years prior to her submitting a naturalisation request.
The applicant argued that the municipal authorities that handled her application have not properly informed her that about the time that needed to expire between her criminal conviction and applying for naturalisation, and that the state authorities who took the decision on her naturalisation should have made an exception in her due to a number of special circumstances, among which her statelessness.
Concerning the issue of the applicant's statelessness, the Court reasoned as follows:
"[The Court of lower instance] has correctly considered that having passed the integration test and doing voluntary work are not such exceptional circumstance that require deviation from the policy, and that statelessness does not affect the circumstance that at the relevant moment for testing whether the requirements of Article 9(1a) of the Dutch Royal Law on Nationality have been met there have been serious concerns about the applicant being a threat for public order."
The Court upheld the administrative decision to deny naturalisation, leaving the applicant stateless.