A person born in Tajikistan applied for statelessness status. The applicant argued that he could not ask for nationality from Tajikistan because that country would force him to convert to Islam. The Spanish authorities dismissed the application because, under their understating of Tajikistan law, nationality from that country is granted on a jus sanguinis basis regardless of the religion or ethnicity of the applicant. The court confirmed the decision of the Spanish authorities to deny the statelessness status on the grounds that: (i) given the alleged nationality of his parents it was reasonable to assume that the applicant could have the right to nationality of Tajikistan; (ii) it was not proven that the authorities from Tajikistan actually denied nationality to the applicant, that his parents were not from Tajikistan nor that it was required to convert to Islam to obtain the nationality; and (iii) the applicant filed its application in 2012 despite having arrived in Spain in 2003 (this delay goes against the credibility of the application).
- 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons
- Constitutional Law of the Republic of Tajikistan on Nationality, 4 November 1995
- Real Decreto 865/2001, de 20 de julio, por el que se aprueba el Reglamento de reconocimiento del estatuto de apátrida (Regulation on the Statute of Stateless Persons)
The applicant was born in Tajikistan, as were his parents and grandparents. His birth was duly registered.
He requested the recognition of statelessness status but it was denied by the Ministry of Interior on 23 December 2014 because it believed that his right to hold Tajik nationality had not been violated, given that Tajik national law foresees that the main rule to acquire the Tajik nationality is by descent (ius sanguinis).
The applicant appealed this decision before the National Court and then before the Supreme Court. Both courts confirmed the Ministry of Interior's criteria.
1. Violation of Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention because the applicant meets all the requirements to be granted statelessness status.
2. The applicant cannot acquire Tajik nationality because he would have to convert to Islam to acquire it.
1. The applicant recognises having been born in Tajikistan, that his parents and grandparents were Tajik and that his birth was duly registered.
2. The national law of Tajikistan foresees that the main rule to acquire Tajik nationality is by descent (ius sanguinis) (both parents of the applicant were from Tajikistan) regardless of the religion (Christian) or ethnicity (tartar) of the applicant. Additionally, in case of statelessness, Tajik law says that it shall promote the acquisition of Tajik nationality.
3. Tajik law does not subject the granting of Tajik nationality to being Muslim or of Tajik ethnicity. Given that no proof has been given that the Tajik authorities require this condition to be met, the law must prevail.
4. It is not enough for the applicant to state that he does not hold a nationality. In this regard, proof is required that the State of Tajikistan does not grant him Tajik nationality.
Both the Spanish National Court (Audiencia Nacional) and the Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) confirmed the decision of the Spanish authorities to deny the statelessness status on the grounds that: (i) given the alleged nationality of his parents it was reasonable to assume that the applicant could have the right to nationality of Tajikistan; (ii) it was not proven that the authorities from Tajikistan actually denied nationality to the applicant, that his parents were not from Tajikistan nor that it was required to convert to Islam to obtain the nationality. It is not enough for the applicant to state that he does not hold a nationality. In this regard, proof is required that the State of Tajikistan does not grant him Tajik nationality. (iii) The applicant filed its application in 2012 despite having arrived in Spain in 2003 (this delay goes against the credibility of the application).
In addition, the sociopolitical situation in Tajikistan may not be used as an argument to grant recognition of statelessness, although it could be taken into account for granting asylum.
The court concluded that "the applicant had not proven that the State of Tajikistan (whose nationality in law he may reasonably be entitled to) has denied him that nationality" and, therefore, the applicant did not have the right to statelessness status under the 1954 Statelessness Convention.
The applicant cannot be granted statelessness status because he has failed to prove that he meets the necessary requirements. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the National Court's decision upholding the Government's decision refusing the applicant's request.
Decision of the Contentious - Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of 22 December 2008 (cassation 8597/2004) in which it was stated that in the context of a statelessness status application, "beyond the mere statement by the applicant that he does not have a nationality, there must be some indication of the existence of the circumstances referred to in the statelessness regulations, since without it the recognition of the statelessness status is inappropriate".