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.
1954 Convention
The applicant applied for recognition of his statelessness status before the Ministry of Domestic Affairs, which was rejected. He appealed to the first instance court (Court of Perugia), which rejected the appeal.
The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal of Perugia, which rejected the claim, stating that:
- In support of his claim, the applicant argued that he had been living and settled in Italy for 20 years, he had lost any condition of protection or legitimacy in his country of origin (Iran), and he had not acquired Italian nationality;
- The applicant criticised the decision of the first judge who had held that proof of termination of the previous Iranian nationality was necessary;
- According to the provision of Article 1 of the 1954 Convention, and of fundamental requirements of reasonableness, proof of the loss of nationality could well be limited to proof of the loss of that of the State of original nationality and could also be inferred, even if not from formal acts, from acts incompatible with the continued existence of any "protection" of the national;
- Such proof was entirely lacking on the part of the applicant.
The applicant argued that there has been a violation of the 1954 Convention and Article 738 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, as the Court assumed a formalistic concept of loss of original nationality and failed to order, as it could and should have done, the factual findings and information submitted in support of his application for recognition of statelessness status.
The Council of State found that the appeal is denied of any basis and must be rejected. The Court of Perugia correctly drew from the overall reading of the 1954 Convention the consideration 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 Court of Perugia also emphasised that, for the purposes of the ascertainment in question, it is certainly not necessary to prove the formal act of deprivation of original nationality (or the refusal of that of the State of residence), since this condition may be inferred from acts of refusal of the individual protections or prerogatives to which nationals are entitled under the relevant legal system. The law in no way imposes the acquisition by the Administration of formal acts of a private nature, more generally requiring the documentation of facts capable of proving statelessness status. Based on the exact premises in law, the Court then found that the applicant had produced neither formal acts nor measures symptomatic of the aforementioned deprivation, but had attached his own 20-years' residence in Italy and a temporary recognition of refugee status, only alleging a generic fumus persecutionis (if anything, indicative of the Iranian will to persecute him and not to oust him).
The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal.