Case Law Search

The National Court (Audiencia Nacional) confirmed the rejection of the applicant's statelessness status on the ground that the presumption of Mauritanian nationality, derived from the fact that the applicant held a Mauritanian passport, had not been rebutted. 

The applicant, after having received statelessness status by a decision issued by the Court of Rome, applied for recognition of Italian nationality under Article 1(2) of Law 91/92 (which provides that: 'The child of unknown parents found in the territory of the Republic shall be considered a citizen by birth, unless the possession of another citizenship is proved'). This application was rejected by the municipality, the latter considering that the procedure provided for by Article 9(1)(e) of Law 91/92, which provides that Italian nationality may be recognised to 'stateless persons who have been legally residing in the territory of the Republic for at least five years', shall be applied instead.

The Court of Naples declared the Article 1(2) of Law 91/92 shall be applied in the specific case for the following reasons:

- Article 1(2) of Law 91/92 established a "presumption of birth on Italian territory" which could be rebutted only by a proof to the contrary, and such proof could only be proof that the person concerned had another citizenship (proof that was not possible in the specific circumstances, since it was undisputed that the applicant had a stateless status, having been recognised as such by the court in Rome);

- Stateless status has a "declaratory and not a constitutive" nature (as established by previous Supreme Court case law and in particular Supreme court decision no. 4823 of 4 May 2004 and Supreme court decision no. 16489 of 19 June 2019). Stateless status is by definition a situation of uncertainty and vulnerability which must therefore be limited;

- Article 1(2) of Law 91/92, providing for the automatic acquisition of citizenship (as confirmed by the previous Supreme Court decision no. 1053 of 14 January 2022) is precisely intended to prevent any statelessness status. 

- If the objective conditions for the automatic acquisition of citizenship laid down in Article 1(2) of Law 91/92 are met, the person concerned is granted a subjective right to citizenship which cannot be denied by the body responsible for assessing citizenship (i.e. the Ministry of Public Affairs).

In light of the above the Court of Naples declared the acquisition of Italian nationality by the stateless person concerned on the basis of Article 1(2) of Law 91/92.

The case concerns the challenge before the French Council of State (Conseil d'État) of a refusal by the Administrative Court of Appeal to grant the applicant statelessness status. As the Administrative Court of Appeal misinterpreted the arguments of the French Office of Protection of refugees and stateless people (OFPRA), the Council of State quashed its ruling and decided on the merits of the case. The Council of State however reached the same outcome as the Administrative Court of Appeal and refused to grant the applicant statelessness status. 

The Supreme Court considered that Western Sahara was not part of Spain for the purposes of granting nationality to a Saharawi residing in the territory of Western Sahara until the departure of Spain from said territory. The Supreme Court overturned an earlier ruling by the High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands that had granted Spanish nationality to a Sahrawi applicant.

The Supreme Court confirms the decision of the National High Court which set aside a judgment of the Ministry of Justice denying an application to obtain Spanish nationality by a stateless person, on the basis that such denial was arbitrary.

In a case concerning an application for statelessness determination, the Italian Court of Cassation found that the ordinary judiciary had jurisdiction over the matter and that the Ministry of Domestic Affairs was the right defendant in this case.

The UK Supreme Court ruled on the case of a Belarusian national against whom a deportation order remains in place but who is in limbo, having been subject to several unsuccessful removal attempts and detention. The Home Secretary refused to grant him residence (leave to remain) even though there is no real prospect of his removal. On appeal, the UK Supreme Court held that because the applicant thwarted his removal with his own deliberate actions (allegedly due to his refusal to disclose his real identity), the decision does not violate the applicant’s right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 ECHR.

The applicant was denied statelessness status on the ground that national-level legislation does not define the authority responsible for granting this status and the procedure for its determination. The Court held that there were no reasonable grounds for denying the applicant statelessness status, and the explicit legal provision obliging the Migration Directorate to grant statelessness status and issue the necessary documents is regulated by Article 28 of the 1954 Convention and Article 59 par. (1) and (8) of the Bulgarian Identity Documents Act. The Court highlighted Bulgaria´s ratification of the 1954 Convention and emphasised the need for administrative assistance to stateless people.

The applicant appealed the refusal of the Regional Administrative Court of his application for a residence permit for family reunification with his son to the Council of State (Consiglio di Stato). While the Council of State acknowledges that the 1954 Convention assimilates stateless persons to nationals as far as their enjoyment of civil rights is concerned, it held that the traditional principle remains whereby, as far as their public status is concerned, stateless persons are always assimilated to foreigners. Moreover, it found that no special right of stateless persons to family reunification other than that of other foreigners can be inferred from the rules governing the status of stateless persons.

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court the rejection of his application for the statelessness determination procedure by the Court and the Court of Appeal, on the ground of failure to meet the evidentiary requirements. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, finding that the lower court had correctly held that the condition of stateless persons is that of those who have lost their original nationality and have not acquired that of their State of residence, at the same time not being endowed with guarantees equivalent to those of nationality or with special protection by international bodies. The applicant had not submitted such proof, as he had only attached his own 20-years' residence in Italy and a temporary recognition of refugee status.

The case involves a complaint by the applicant against the refusal of the Director of the Territorial Unite "Migration" in Dobrich to recognise her as a stateless person and issue the corresponding identity document. The Administrative Court of Dobrich considered the case and ruled that the refusal violated Art. 28 of the 1954 Convention and Article 59 of the Bulgarian Identity Documents Act. Moreover, the Court stated that the absence of a body governed by specific legal provisions at the national level does not justify denying rights to stateless persons. The Court highlighted Bulgaria´s ratification of the 1954 Convention and emphasised the need for administrative assistance to stateless people.

In 1991, Slovenia gained its independence. Subsequently, legal issues arose concerning the legal status of nationals from other republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) who were lawfully and permanently residing in Slovenia during this transition. They could, up to a certain date, choose to apply for Slovenian nationality. If they did not apply or if their application was rejected, the newly passed Law on Foreigners (ZTuj) would apply to them in accordance with Article 81(2) of ZTuj. However, for those nationals of other SFRY republics that did not opt for Slovenian nationality or whose application was rejected, this law failed to define the conditions for obtaining permanent residence. These individuals found themselves in a legal vacuum, leading to uncertainty and challenges regarding their legal status, facing possible deportation and limited access to essential services. In this decision, the Constitutional Court of Slovenia declared that Article 81(2) of ZTuj was unconstitutional as it had not outlined the conditions for acquiring permanent residence for this specific group of individuals.

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the decisions rejecting his application for recognition of his statelessness status from the first instance court and the Court of Appeal on the ground of an error in the choice of procedure (chamber procedure rather than the ordinary recognition procedure).

The case raised one point of principle: what type of court procedure should be applied in determining statelessness. The Supreme Court sustained the Court of Appeal’s previous decision determining that the ordinary procedure of cognition (procedimento ordinario di cognizione) is the type of court procedure to be applied.

Shamima Begum, aged 15, left the UK for Syria to live with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (“ISIS”). She was deprived of her British citizenship by a decision taken by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on national security grounds under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. On appeal from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (“SIAC”), the Court of Appeal held that the decision to deprive Begum of her citizenship was lawful and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant had renounced his Bosnian-Herzegovinian citizenship after having received an assurance that he would obtain Croatian citizenship, and became stateless. However, Croatia subsequently refused his citizenship application on national security grounds, without providing the reasons for this decision. He was issued an expulsion order and his permanent residence was terminated. While the applicant was in immigration detention, his Bosnian-Herzegovinian citizenship was restored and he left Croatia voluntarily. The Court found that the limitation in the applicant’s procedural rights in his expulsion proceedings had not protected him against arbitrariness, and found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol n. 7. The remaining complaints were either found inadmissible or were not examined by the Court.

This case concerns the refusal of a municipality to grant Dutch nationality to an undocumented, stateless child born in the Netherlands and who has always lived in the country, because the child had not been residing lawfully in the country for at least three years, as provided by the applicable law. The Dutch court ruled that the refusal should be set aside and nationality granted. The court found that according to the 1961 Convention, only habitual residence is required. It notes that the amended Dutch Nationality Act, in force since October 2023, only provides for the requirement of habitual residence and no longer imposes a lawful residence requirement, and therefore this condition should not have been applied in this case, as it is contrary to international law

The applicant (allegedly a former Cameroonian national who had lost his identity documents) applied for a declaration of statelessness to the Defendant authority who rejected the application on the ground that the applicant did not have any identity documents and failed to cooperate during the verification of his identity by not trying to obtain such documents. This decision was upheld by the court of first instance and was subsequently challenged by the applicant before the Hungarian Supreme Court (Kúria). The Supreme Court held that the application for review was well-founded and confirmed that the definition of statelessness also covers cases where the practice of the competent foreign authority shows that it has ceased to consider an individual as a national. The Court reconfirmed that the burden of proof is shared in the statelessness determination procedure and further clarified that an applicant cannot automatically be held to violate their duty to cooperate if they do not possess identity documents and cannot acquire such documents due to reasonable circumstances.

The applicant is a stateless person of Palestinian origin who was born in a refugee camp in Lebanon. He applied for protection in the UK on several grounds, including that he was at risk of harm in breach of Article 3 ECHR because of attempts to recruit him to extremist armed factions in the camp, but his application was rejected. The ECtHR accepted that there was no risk in case of return to Lebanon, and found no information supporting the applicant’s argument in a EUAA (former EASO) report regarding the recruitment of young Palestinians in refugee camps in Lebanon. The Court found no violation of Article 3 ECHR.

The Polish Supreme Administrative Court decided that according to the law of Israel, a Jewish Polish national who settled back to Israel during World War II obtained Israeli nationality even before the enactment of the Israeli Nationality Act of 1952. As a consequence, under Polish law, that person may have lost its Polish nationality under the Polish Citizenship Act from 20 January 1920.

The applicant, a stateless person, had been sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment in a strict regime facility as well as payment of a fine and a so-called limitation of freedom for two years (i.e. an imposition of certain restrictions of movement, such as an order to stay within a specific municipality or not to attend certain places, after release from a correctional facility). The applicant challenged the decision regarding the limitation of freedom as it cannot be imposed under the Russian Criminal Code when the sentenced person is stateless. The Supreme Court agreed with the applicant and ordered that the limitation of freedom is removed from the sentence.

The applicant, a stateless person, had been sentenced to 19 years of imprisonment in a strict regime facility as well as to payment of a fine and a limitation of freedom for two years (which is an imposition of certain restrictions of movement, such as leaving a specific municipality or going to certain public places, after release from a correctional facility). The applicant challenged the sentence on various grounds. The prosecutor's office filed an appeal in the applicant’s favour, requesting to lift the imposition of a limitation of freedom as the relevant law does not apply to stateless individuals. The Supreme Court agreed with the prosecutor’s office and ordered the amendment of the sentence.

The applicants are a father and his three sons who became Russian nationals between 2002 and 2004. In 2022, the prosecutor´s office for Shatura City in the Moscow Region filed a lawsuit to declare the applicants’ naturalisations void as a consequence of having allegedly provided false documents for their naturalisation applications. The Shatura City Court sided with the prosecutor’s office and declared that the applicants had never acquired Russian nationality.

The case concerns the loss of Danish nationality by the applicant who was born outside Denmark to a Danish mother and had spent less than a year in Denmark prior to her 22nd birthday, in accordance with the Law of Danish Nationality. The Court held that Article 20 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, did not preclude such legislation by Member States, provided that the persons concerned had the opportunity to lodge, within a reasonable period, an application for the retention or recovery of nationality, for the authorities to examine the proportionality of the consequences of the loss of nationality from the perspective of EU law, and allow the retention or recovery of nationality. However, the period must extend for a reasonable time beyond the date by which the person concerned reaches the age stated in the legislation, and cannot begin to run unless the authorities have informed the person of the loss of nationality, and the right to apply for the maintenance or recovery of nationality.

The applicant’s application for statelessness status was denied (both in first and second instance) due to a lack of sufficient proof to determine a difficulty in establishing a nationality, paired with a substantial lack of cooperation of the applicant with the authorities. The Court ruled that the applicant, of Kurdish origin, did not provide coherent and sufficient evidence to support his application.

The applicant’s application for statelessness status was denied due to the lack of sufficient proof to determine a difficulty in establishing a nationality, paired with a substantial lack of cooperation of the applicant with the authorities. The Court ruled that the applicant, declaring being of Somalian origin but eventually confirmed of unknown origin, did not provide coherent and sufficient evidence to support his application.