The asylum application filed by applicants of unknown nationality of Palestinian origin with Syrians travel documents was rejected and the applicants were temporarily admitted in Switzerland, as the enforcement of removal had proven unreasonable. The refugees submitted a subsequent application for recognition of statelessness, which was approved by the Swiss Federal Court. The Swiss Federal Court assessed the legitimate interest of the request and specified the legal requirements and advantages of being recognised a stateless person, to which temporarily admitted persons would not be entitled.
National Law (AIG)
Article 1D of Refugee Convention
The applicants, a parent and his children, are of Palestinian origin with unknown nationality from Syria. They left their country of origin and traveled to Switzerland with Syrian travel documents for Palestinian refugees and visas for visiting purposes in 2014.
Their asylum applications submitted in Switzerland were rejected in 2015. At the same time, the preliminary admission of the applicants was ordered due to the unreasonableness of the enforcement of removal.
The applicants applied for recognition of statelessness and stated that they were registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which is active in Syria. The applicants claimed that they would no longer fall under the protection of the UNRWA because of their departure.
The Swiss authorities (the State Secretary for Migration) rejected the request for recognition of statelessness in 2019. The appeal filed against the authorities' decision was rejected by the Federal Administrative Court.
The applicants request that the Federal Administrative Court’s decision is set aside, their statelessness is recognised and that they are granted a residence permit. The applicants prove a legitimate interest, as stateless persons in the light of the 1954 Convention would be entitled to legal advantages. The applicants argue that UNRWA can no longer provide assistance and that it is impossible for them to obtain travel documents from the Syrian representation.
The authorities (the State Secretariat for Migration) claim that the recognition of statelessness would not grant any legal advantages as the applicants have been temporarily granted residence permits in the meantime.
In addition, the authorities do not recognise the status of statelessness if persons deliberately lose their nationality or do not do everything reasonable to retain or regain their nationality. As the applicants’ departure from Syria in 2014 was voluntary and they had the possibility to obtain travel documents from the Syrian representation, the authorities do not consider the applicants as stateless persons within the meaning of Article 1 paragraph 1 of the 1954 Convention.
The Swiss Federal Court held that the recognition of statelessness grants a right to reside and work in Switzerland as well as to the issuance of travel documents. Although persons holding a residence permit have the same possibilities and rights to work as a stateless person according to Swiss law, it must be assessed in addition to what extent the applicants may apply for travel documents via the Syrian authorities and travel abroad with Palestinian passports. In the Swiss Federal Court’s view, the issuance of Swiss travel documents undoubtedly represents an advantage for them. The recognition as a stateless person would grant the applicants a right to obtain Swiss travel documents and therefore result in a legal advantage for the applicants, compared to their current situation. An ultimate legitimate interest in the annulment of the contested decision is therefore given for the applicant.
The Swiss Federal Court stated that the 1954 Convention defines a stateless person as 'a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law'. In the Court’s view, there is no evidence that the applicants willingly renounced their nationality or would have the opportunity to acquire a nationality. The applicants consequently need to be considered as stateless persons.
The court approved the appeal. The authorities (the State Secretariat for Migration) are ordered to recognise the applicants as stateless persons.