- 295 results found
Azerbaijani authorities refused to issue an identity card to children born in Azerbaijan to foreign parents, thereby denying them Azerbaijani nationality (as domestic law applicable at the time applied the jus soli principle). The Court held that the refusal by the national authorities to deliver an identity card to the children is tantamount to a refusal to recognise their Azerbaijani nationality. This had considerable negative consequences for the children and therefore constituted an interference with their right to a private life in violation of Article 8 ECHR. It further found that the necessary procedural guarantees were not in place and that the decision was arbitrary.
A Dutch court asked through a preliminary ruling whether a national court may, when required to review the lawfulness of detention or continued detention, be limited by a procedural rule of national law which prevents it from taking into account pleas or arguments not put forward by the applicant. The CJEU found that EU directives should be interpreted as requiring courts to raise any failure to comply with conditions governing the lawfulness of detention, including those not invoked by the applicant.
The applicant is a Palestinian refugee born in an UNRWA refugee camp in Lebanon. The applicant argues that the Secretary of State failed to acknowledge that he is stateless when applying the exclusion clause of Article 1D of the Refugee Convention. The Hague District Court refers to case law from 2017 which states that statelessness determination is not a requirement during an asylum procedure if it is not essential for the decision on the application.
The Federal Administrative Court (FAC) specifies its case law on the legitimate interest in the proceedings of an application for the recognition of statelessness. The FAC approves the appeal of a member of the Ajanib minority from Syria whose application was rejected by the State Secretariat for Migration and recognizes his stateless status.
This case concerns the compatibility of domestic Lithuanian legislation with the Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32 and the Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33. The relevant domestic legislation meant that during a state of emergency in Lithuania due to a mass influx of migrants, the applicant, a third country national who entered the country unlawfully, was denied the opportunity to lodge an application for international protection and was placed in detention.
The applicant is a deaf-mute individual who had been denied medical treatment because he was in Italy in an irregular state. He lived with his parents (both of whom claimed to be stateless persons from the former Yugoslavia) along with his 6 siblings in a refugee camp in Rome. The applicant had never obtained Italian or Yugoslavian citizenship. He therefore urgently applied to be recognised as stateless, obtain a residence permit and a travel document. The Chamber of Judges recognised his statelessness status, applying the principles set out by the Italian Supreme Court in previous decisions (and in particular in the Supreme Court decision 28873/08 dated 9 December 2008).
The authorities denied statelesness status to the applicant, holding that he could have applied for both Ghanaian and Malian nationality, countries the applicant had links with.The Court of Florence overturned this decision, holding that the standard of proof must be lower and similar to that used to identify a "foreigner eligible for international protection" under Italian law. The lower standard of proof means the Court can recognise statelessness status even when no full evidence of facts is submitted, provided that the applicant has used his reasonable endeavours to substantiate his application, could provide sufficient justification for the absence of significant facts, has submitted plausible and consistent statements, has lodged his application as soon as practicable or has had a good reason for delay, and can be regarded as a credible person.
The authorities refused to examine the applications of Dutch nationals, with dual nationality of a non-EU country, for renewal of their Dutch passports. The decision was based on the fact that they had lost their Dutch nationality because they possessed a foreign nationality and had their principal residence for an uninterrupted period of 10 years outside the Netherlands and the EU. The CJEU found that Member States may lay down rules regulating the loss of their nationality and, as a result, the loss of EU citizenship, where the genuine link between the person and that State is durably interrupted. Nevertheless, the loss of nationality must respect the principle of proportionality, which requires an individual assessment of the consequences of that loss for the person from the point of view of EU law.
This case concerns an extradition request from Germany to Greece regarding a stateless person accused of several crimes in Germany. The Greek Supreme Court found that the extradition of a stateless person is not prohibited under the European Convention on Extradition and the national legislation.
The applicant was born in an undisclosed Soviet Union Republic and moved to Russia in 1993. He held a temporary resident permit. He was convicted of a drug-related crime and sentenced to eight years in prison. The Ministry of Justice issued a decision on the "undesirability of his stay" in Russia. The Ministry of Internal Affairs followed up with a decision ordering his deportation as the applicant failed to leave Russia within the prescribed deadline. After being released from prison, the applicant was placed in a migration detention centre for 48 hours; this term was repeatedly extended by the court (prior to his eventual release). Russian authorities contacted Armenian and Azerbaijani authorities, both of which refused to grant the applicant entry as he was not a citizen of their respective countries. The applicant challenged both decision of the Ministry of Justice on the undesirability of his stay in Russia and the decision of Ministry of Internal Affairs ordering his deportation. The challenge was dismissed due to lack of legal grounds to declare the disputed decisions illegal.
The Applicant was born in Uzbekistan in 1974 and obtained Russian citizenship in 2005. In 2017, he was convicted of an extremist crime for organisation of an extremist religious community (Nur movement) branch in the city of Blagoveshchensk and sentenced to imprisonment. In January 2019, his Russian citizenship was removed because of the conviction. After being released from prison in April 2019, the Applicant did not have any identification documents except for certificate of release, as his Russian passport was withheld. He did not have a chance to acquire any other documents to legalise his stay in Russia or leave the country, since he was arrested and placed in the migration detention centre five minutes after his release from the prison. As a result, Russian state court of civil jurisdiction declared the Applicant guilty of an administrative offence for violation of rules of stay in the Russian Federation under Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation ("CAO") and prescribed a punishment in the form of penalty and administrative expulsion from the Russian territory.
Russian authorities contacted Uzbekistan to expel him there, however Uzbekistan did not agree to accept the Applicant. As a result, the Applicant remained in custody for about two years, since Russian law does not have provisions granting stateless individuals the right to challenge their detention nor requiring the courts to determine its duration when ordering the detention. Following unsuccessful challenges of his detention in the Russian state courts of civil jurisdiction, the Applicant filed a complaint with the Russian Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of the relevant legal provisions. The Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal finding all the challenged provisions were constitutional because its earlier judgment No. 14-P/2017 of 25 May 2017 already provided stateless individuals a right to challenge their further detention three months after the date of the decision to detain and expel them. The Constitutional Court also contacted Uzbekistan authorities again and they finally agreed to receive the Applicant in Uzbekistan.
The case concerns the eligibility to receive pension as a widow, in a case where the marriage has lasted less than the three-year threshold foreseen in the legislation. The applicant claimed that she had been unable to marry her partner for a significant period of time, in view of the fact that she was stateless. The Court of appeals found that since the cause of the applicant's husband's death could be regarded as an accident, his wife could be eligible to receive his pension, irrespective of the fact that their marriage had lasted for only 9 months.
The case concerns the rejection of an application for re-acquisition of Greek nationality by a woman who voluntarily renounced her nationality following the acquisition of foreign nationality by marriage, in spite of the fact that her husband was allegedly a stateless person of Palestinian origin. The court ruled that the competent authorities had acted legitimately by rejecting the application.
A dual British and Pakistani national who was detained in a camp in Syria was deprived of her British nationality in December 2019 on the grounds that this would be conducive to the public good. A copy of the notice of the deprivation was placed on the applicant's file but was not communicated to her at this time. Under regulations made under the British Nationality Act 1981, this was considered to constitute notice. The deprivation of citizenship was only communicated to the applicant when her lawyers contacted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in September 2020 to ask for assistance with the applicant’s repatriation and were later informed of this decision by the Home Office in October 2020. The applicant applied for judicial review, claiming that the domestic regulation in question and the deprivation decision had no legal effect. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Secretary of State appeal against the High Court decision finding in the applicant's favour. The judgment is currently under appeal before the Supreme Court.
This case concerns the repatriation of the applicants’ daughters and grandchildren, French nationals, who were being held in camps in north-eastern Syria after leaving France to join Daesh/ISIS. The applicants alleged that the refusal by France to repatriate their kin exposed those family members to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and breached their right to enter the territory of the State of which they were nationals as guaranteed by Article 3(2) of Protocol No. 4. The Court dismissed the complaint under Article 3 but found the complaint under Article 3(2) of Protocol No. 4 admissible.
The case concerns the applicable legislation under Greek private international law for divorce proceedings regarding a couple of Iranian nationality residing in Greece as asylum seekers. The court found that asylum seekers and refugees cannot be treated as stateless and therefore the legislation of their country of origin is applicable in divorce proceedings. The court postponed the issuance of a final decision until the applicant submits information on Iranian law on divorce to the court.
The case concerns the refusal by the competent authority to naturalise the applicant who was born in the former Yugoslavia, is of non-Greek descent with "undetermined" nationality and permanent resident of Greece as a recognised refugee. The court ruled that the competent authorities may reject the application for naturalisation without being obliged to provide a particular reasoning for that decision.
The case concerns the refusal by the Greek authorities to grant benefits and pension to mothers with at least four children, as prescribed by law, in case any of the children is not a Greek national. In this case, the family had lost Greek nationality. While most family members re-acquired it later, one of the daughters had remained stateless.
The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) quashed Decision № 180/30.03.2022 by the Council of Minister which states the following: “Foreign citizens and stateless persons who have fled from Ukraine as a result of the military actions and who have entered and stayed on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria may receive temporary protection even without their explicit statement and registration to benefit from temporary protection until 15 April 2022”. SAC found that the wording of the Decision is unclear, that no such deadline may be imposed and that temporary protection status may not be assigned automatically (without the consent of the beneficiary). The cassation court which heard the appeal to that judgment upheld this decision with regard to imposing a deadline for temporary protection registration, but held that temporary protection can be assigned automatically.
Decision no. 458/2012 concerns an objection to the unconstitutionality of Article 13 (1) of the Romanian Citizenship Law no. 21/1991 (the “Romanian Citizenship Law”), an article which requires individuals applying for acquisition/re-acquisition of citizenship to submit their request in person.
The applicant argued that the article infringes (i) Article 16 (1) of the Romanian Constitution guaranteeing the equal treatment of individuals before the law, (ii) Article 21 (1) - (2) of the Romanian Constitution regarding the free access to justice, (iii) Article 24 of the Romanian Constitution – the right of defence, as well as (iV) the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 6 ECHR.
The Romanian Constitutional Court rejected the objection. It noted that, as this procedure is purely administrative, it does not fall under the scope of Article 16 (1) and Article 21 (1) - (2) of the Romanian Constitution, nor is Article 6 of ECHR applicable. The Romanian Constitutional Court highlights that the presence of the applicant (in the process of acquiring citizenship) is the first proof of the interest that one shows in obtaining citizenship, as an expression of the connection and belonging of a natural person to the Romanian State.
The case concerns the acquisition of Greek nationality by the son of a mother who had lost Greek nationality prior to his birth. The court ruled that individuals whose mother had lost Greek nationality on grounds other than marriage were not eligible to acquire Greek nationality.
The case concerns civil liability of the Greek State in view of the revocation of a naturalisation decision. The applicant, who was born in Greece to a Greek mother and a stateless father, applied for naturalisation, not having acquired Greek nationality before. The authorities accepted his application but later revoked their decision since the applicant had not taken the oath within the required deadline. The applicant later re-applied and was naturalised Greek. He brought a claim against the Greek State requesting monetary compensation for the moral damages sustained due to the revocation of his nationality. The court held that the naturalisation decision could not be revoked in case the person concerned had taken the oath, even after the expiration of the deadline. However, no compensation should be awarded since no causal link could be established between the actions of the competent authorities and the damages claimed to have been sustained by the applicant.
The case concerns an application for asylum by a Cameroonian national, a single mother with a child born in the UK. The applicant claimed that the child’s father was a German national exercising his EEA treaty rights in the UK, and that the child may accordingly be a British citizen. The Court of Session held that the Upper Tribunal erred in not adjudicating an application for directions filed by the applicant to obtain documents to ascertain the father’s nationality. In respect of the documents required, the court held that there was no duty to enquire on the part of the Secretary of State, to identify and produce appropriate documents. The court also noted that the applicant’s situation as a single mother with a child who would be without family support was a material consideration in assessing her claim for asylum.
The court held that Greek law shall be applied in the case of the adoption of a stateless person of Palestinian origin who is permanently residing in Greece, according to Greek private international law.
This case concerns the application for the issuance of a "certificate of inheritance'' to prove the status of heir of a stateless person. The court found that, while the issuance of such a certificate is not possible for a stateless person since, in view of her status, she is not registered in the municipal rolls, the applicants should still provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim that their are the heirs of the deceased.