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.
- 1954 Statelessness Convention
- 1961 Statelessness Convention
- European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, Art. 3)
- Modified Law of 29th August 2008 on the Free Movement of People and immigration, (Loi modifiée du 29 août 2008 sur la libre circulation des personnes et l’immigration)
- Resolution no. 1, UN Conference on Statelessness reduction
- Vienna Convention on the law of treaties
- European Charter of Fundamental Rights
- Directive 2008/115/CE of the European Parliament and Council, 16 December 2008
The appeal was brought by the applicant who declared himself to be stateless. At the time, he was residing in Luxembourg and sought the annulment of a decision of the authorities (the Ministry of Immigration and Asylum) of 2019, refusing to grant him statelessness status and containing the 'implicit' order to leave the country.
It appears from the administrative file that the applicant was known by the Italian authorities under a different identity and of Iraqi nationality. He was expelled from Italy to Greece in 2002.
The applicant also applied several times for international protection in Luxembourg. At that time, he declared to be of Iraqi nationality. His applications were rejected by decision for tacit renunciation and unresponsiveness (the applicant did not show up at the appointment to explain his reasons for the protection).
The applicant also applied twice for international protection in the United Kingdom, under Iranian nationality and he was transferred back to Luxembourg.
After multiple rejections, in 2018, the Luxembourgish authorities (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) informed the applicant of the possibility to grant him a residence permit on the condition that he presented a valid passport and that he fulfilled the conditions of national law. The applicant replied with a request of temporary stay, which was rejected.
In 2019, the applicant applied for the recognition of statelessness status, which the Ministry first and the Administrative Court (first and second instance) second, rejected.
In law, the applicant relies on a first plea alleging a violation by the administration of its obligations of diligence, impartiality and fairness under the 1954 Convention, the general principle of the right to good administration and Article 8 of the Return Directive (Directive 2008/115/EC).
Moreover, based on the right to impartiality as stated in Article 41 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the applicant considers that EU Member States must respect the right to a good administration when implementing the law of the Union. The applicant argues that the Ministry disregarded the principle of impartiality by accusing him of having been uncooperative in establishing his identity and nationality.
In addition, the applicant stated that the Luxembourgish authorities did not show any diligence in order to proceed with his deportation. They certainly tried to send him back to Iran, but for several years, the Ministry never tried to send him back anywhere but Iran, nor would he have suggested that he might be a national of another State.
He also criticises the administrative authority for not having clearly identified, in its decision, the countries relevant to his request and to have waited for the contentious phase to explain that not only Iran, but also Turkey and Iraq would be relevant. This would be contrary to the requirements of the 1954 Convention as it would undermine its purpose, which is to effectively protect persons without a nationality.
The Court found that the applicant did not demonstrate that he met the requirements of Article 1 of the 1954 Convention and the Ministry therefore rightly refused to grant him statelessness status. The appeal was rejected on the following grounds (mainly because the statelessness status cannot be presumed but must be supported by sufficient proof):
- The applicant declared being Kurdish, born in Iran from Kurdish ascendants.
- Due to his personal and people’s history, it was difficult to establish a nationality (Kurdish minority).
- He did not consider himself an Iranian national: his life would have been at risk in Iran, which he left at the age of 13.
- According to the applicant, Iran could not recognise his nationality under any means. He declared having been persecuted, along with his family, in Iran for his Kurdish belonging.
- Lack of cooperation of the applicant with the Iranian authorities, which could not issue him documents in the absence of a document proving his identity and in the absence of the possibility to verify his statements. They even declared during a video conference - during which the applicant claimed to have no link with Iran and to be of Kurdish origin - that the Iranian embassy was ready to issue him a pass, even if he is of Kurdish origin, the only condition being that he agreed with a voluntary return, which he has however refused.
- The Administrative Court pointed out that in his previous applications the applicant declared himself to be an Iranian national of Kurdish origin.
- According to the Administrative Court, believing or considering oneself to be stateless, without providing any concrete evidence, cannot establish statelessness. Two private certificates - undated - certifying that the applicant would be from Iranian Kurdistan could not be considered as such evidence. Also, the applicant did not show any proof of recovery of any kind of nationality (since his arrival in Europe in 2002).
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Administrative Court found the appeal unjustified and dismissed it, confirmed the judgment of first instance, and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the appeal.
- R.N.N.S. et K.A. (C-225/19), European Court of Justice
- Hungeod and others (C-496/18 and C-497/18), European Court of Justice
- Rottman (C-135/08), European Court of Justice