Case Law Search

The applicant originally from Azerbaijan unsuccessfully applied for statelessness status in France following the rejection of his asylum claim. The Court found that in his application for statelessness status, the applicant did not show that the legal provisions governing the law of nationality in the countries with which he had a link were not applicable to him or were not applied to him by the authorities of these countries, and he did not provide evidence of having made 'repeated and assiduous approaches' to the authorities of these countries to be recognised a national, or of having been refused nationality by them after examination of his application. Moreover, the applicant cannot simply invoke the absence of registration in a country if he has resided in said country for a long time.

The applicants were detained in Russia in view of their expulsion respectively to Ukraine and Georgia. They claimed to be stateless but the Russian authorities did not properly assess whether the removal remained a ‘realistic prospect’ throughout detention, thus the Court found a breach of Article 5 ECHR. 

This communication to the Committee on the Rights of the Child was submitted by nationals of Finland on behalf of the applicants’ own child relatives and on behalf of 33 other children who are held in the Hawl camp in the north-east of Syria. The children's parents are allegedly associated with the Islamic State. The applicants claim that Finland’s refusal to assist or repatriate these children despite knowing they were at risk of irreparable harm violates Articles 2, 6, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 37, 39, and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as Article 7 of the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The Committee finds the communication filed on behalf of the applicants’ own child relatives admissible and that Finland violated Articles 6(1) and 37 (a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This case concerns the initial refusal of the Italian authorities to recognise the applicant, a stateless person of Slovenian origin, as stateless. He complained this refusal resulted in him being unable to regularise his stay in Italy and constitutes a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. The applicant also complained under Article 14 of the ECHR, citing discrimination in access to Italian nationality and under Article 13 due to the lack of an effective domestic remedy. The Court declared his application inadmissible, as it found that the applicant was no longer a victim of a violation because, after the application was submitted, an Italian court recognised his statelessness status in 2013.

This case concerns a stateless Palestinian who grew up in a refugee camp in Lebanon, the Ein El-Hilweh camp, before applying for asylum in the Netherlands. The Court considered that the general information submitted shows a substantial deterioration in the situation for Palestinian stateless people in Lebanon and in particular in the Ein El-Hilweh camp. The Court found that the Secretary of State’s decision was flawed and that it must reconsider the application considering relevant factors, including whether UNRWA’s support met minimum requirements. An appeal is pending.

Denmark refused to grant the applicant an exemption from the language proficiency requirement and the nationality test in order to become naturalised. The applicant claimed that Denmark violated his rights under Article 26 of the Covenant. The Human Rights Committee considered that, in failing to provide the applicant with any information about the reasoning in its decision on his application or the grounds for refusing his application for an exemption from the language proficiency requirement and the nationality test, Denmark had failed to demonstrate that its decision was based on reasonable and objective grounds. Therefore, the Committee found that the applicant's rights under Article 26 of the Covenant had been violated.

The applicant claimed that Finland violated Articles 8 and 14 ECHR when Finnish authorities allegedly arbitrarily denied him Finnish nationality, despite statements issued by the Russian authorities on his nationality status and the fact that he did not acquire Russian nationality at birth, contrary to the decision of the Finnish authorities based on their interpretation of Russian nationality law. The Court found the application manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible, and held that the Russian authorities’ statements on the applicant’s nationality status, while ambiguous, could imply that he had acquired Russian nationality at the time of his birth.

The applicants, a mother and daughter, are of Russian origin and lived in Latvia. They were deported from Latvia and detained in the process. The husband and father of the applicants was a retired Soviet officer, ordered to leave Latvia together with his family in accordance with the Latvian-Russian treaty on the withdrawal of Russian troops following Latvian independence. The Court found that ordering the applicants’ deportation failed to consider their individual circumstances and the private life they had built in Latvia and violated their Article 8 right to respect for private life.

The case concerns the refusal to grant legal recognition in France to parent-child relationships that had been legally established in the United States for a child born as a result of surrogacy arrangement. The French authorities refused to transcribe the birth certificate of the child into the French civil status registry on the grounds that it would be contrary to public order. The three applicants complained that the refusal to acknowledge the filiation of the parents and child applicant under French law violated Article 8 ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights found that France violated the child's right to respect for her private life in breach of Article 8 ECHR.

In a case concerning a Dutch national associated with ISIS, the Council of State ruled that the decisions from the Dutch authorities to declare the applicant undesirable and to withdraw her Dutch nationality should be annulled on the grounds that they did not sufficiently take into consideration the best interests of her minor children and her right to family life.

The applicants’ request for family reunification was upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal in Luxembourg. The Court ruled that the appeal was well-founded and that the disputed refusal decision of the Court of first instance must be annulled. The Administrative Court of Appeal underlined that, by rejecting the family reunification application, the Ministry of Immigration and Asylum disproportionately infringed the child’s right to respect for her private and family life in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR and disregarded the best interests of the child, protected by Article 24 of the Charter and Article 5 of Directive 2003/86/EC.

The case concerns the unlawfulness of the deportation of a mother and her two daughters from Austria to Georgia. A reassessment from the court (at the time of the execution of the deportation) leads to the result that the circumstances in favour of the applicants have changed to such an extent that the deportation must be considered disproportionate.

The applicant lived in Slovenia for 52 years, of which he had a permanent residence for 28 years. After being erased from the register of permanent residents, he lived in Slovenia for another 24 years. In 2014, a return decision was issued to him. Two years later, when the deadline for voluntary return had expired, he filed an application for permission to stay. The competent authority rejected his request and the case was referred to the administrative court.

The administrative court ruled that when considering the applicant's stay in Slovenia, specific circumstances must be taken into account, especially the length of the applicant’s residence in Slovenia and his social status, as well as the fact that he was a stateless person. In that regard, it is necessary to ensure that his right to respect for this private life is respected.

This case concerns the refusal of the Azerbaijani authorities to issue the applicant, who is of Azerbaijani ethnicity, lives in Azerbaijan and was born in Georgia, with an identity card, thereby denying him Azerbaijani citizenship. The applicant complained that this decision by the authorities was in breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. The Court found that the denial of Azerbaijani citizenship to the applicant had considerable adverse consequences for his enjoyment of various rights. It was not accompanied by the necessary procedural safeguards and must be considered arbitrary.

The case concerns two Swiss nationals in a registered same-sex partnership, who had a child in the United States through a surrogacy agreement. A US court had named both parents as the child’s legal parents, but Switzerland only recognised the parent-child relationship of the genetic father and not the intended father. The intended father was unable to adopt the legally-recognised child of his registered partner as this option was, until January 2018, only open to married (heterosexual) couples. The Court found a violation of the child's right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR).

The removal of the parent of a stateless child who is not entitled to a residence permit can only be ordered for reasons of national security or public order. Otherwise, the removal of the parent would deprive the child of the rights and guarantees attached to the status of stateless person if the child accompanies his or her parents outside French territory in application of the removal order issued against the parents, or would disproportionately infringe on the right to family life of the parents, in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, if the child remains in France separated from his or her parents.

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.

This case concerns the judicial establishment of paternity of a child born and living outside of the Netherlands. The Court rules that a strict application of Article 10:97 Civil Code is problematic because of the risk of statelessness of the child which would result in a violation of Article 8 ECHR and Article 7 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Hence, the Court accepted jurisdiction and applied Dutch law to judicially establish the paternity of the Dutch father.

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.