Global Caselaw Database on Statelessness
The Global Caselaw Database on Statelessness was established to strengthen access to jurisprudence on nationality, statelessness, and related human rights issues. It provides a practical resource for lawyers, academics, advocates, and decision-makers, complementing UNHCR and the Open Society Justice Initiative’s ‘Litigating the Right to Nationality: A Guide for Practitioners’ by bringing together decisions from courts and tribunals across different jurisdictions.
The database covers judgments that address statelessness directly, such as where the applicant is stateless or at risk of statelessness.
The Global Caselaw Database on Statelessness is an evolving tool and new cases will be added incrementally.
Want to offer feedback or suggest a case for inclusion in the Database? Contact our team
This initiative has been made possible with the support of UNHCR, the European Network on Statelessness, and Mallesons.
100 cases found
-
A.M. (on behalf of M.K.A.H.) v. Switzerland
Date of decision: 22 September 2021
Region/country: Europe / Switzerland
Admissibility The Committee considered that the Applicant had sufficiently substantiated, for the purpose of admissibility, the complaints under Articles 3(1), 6(2), 7, 12, 16, 22, 27, 28, 37 and 39 UNCRC by which: (i) the State has not respected the best interests of the child nor heard the child at the time of the hearing of the asylum request and; (ii) the child runs a…
-
AB Raad van State, 202006910/1/V1 & 202006913/1/V6 ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:1722
Date of decision: 29 June 2022
Region/country: Europe / Netherlands
The Court first rejected the Appellant’s argument that no individualised assessment had been made, confirming that the Secretary of State and the AIVD had considered her personal circumstances and that the evidence of her affiliation with ISIS was reliable. Her criminal conviction for participation in a terrorist organisation reinforced this conclusion. Turning to the second ground, the Court emphasised that under Article 68c(2) of the…
-
Abdu Abucar Hussein and 7 others v. Attorney General
Date of decision: 18 March 2022
Region/country: Africa / Republic of Uganda
On Question 1 The Court found that the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 as amended and the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act, Cap.66 are clear on who is a citizen and the nature of citizenship. The Court disagreed with the assessment made by the Deputy Passport Control Officer in his circular as the Constitution is very clear as to who a citizen…
-
Abid Khan and others v Government of Bangladesh and others
Date of decision: 05 May 2003
Region/country: Asia / Bangladesh
The Court considered Section 7(1) of the Electoral Rolls Ordinance 1982 and explained that the two vital issues to be decided were the citizenship of the petitioners and the legal implications of their residence at Geneva Camp. Regarding the First Group, the Court found that: The two Petitioners were entitled to citizenship under Article 2 of the President’s Order for the reasons argued by the…
-
Advisory Opinion No. 4 (Nationality Decrees issued in Tunis and Morocco)
Date of decision: 07 February 1923
Region/country: Middle East; North Africa / Tunis (now Tunisia), Morocco
The PCIJ observed that “[t]he question whether a certain matter is or is not solely within the jurisdiction of a State is an essentially relative question; it depends upon the development of international relations.” (p. 24) On this basis, the PCIJ concluded that, although questions of nationality were in principle solely within the jurisdiction of a State, such jurisdiction is limited by rules of international…
-
Advisory Opinion on Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica
Date of decision: 19 January 1984
Region/country: Americas / Costa Rica
The Court held: There was no violation of Article 20 (right to nationality) in the proposed amendments (5–1 decision). The preferential treatment based on regional affinity was acceptable(Unanimous) Differentiation between natural-born and naturalized Central Americans/Ibero-Americans is not discriminatory (5–1; Judge Buergenthal dissenting) Language and civic requirements are not discriminatory per se (5–1; Judge Piza dissenting) Gender-specific naturalization through marriage is discriminatory and violates the Convention…
-
African Centre of Justice and Peace Studies (ACJPS) And People's Legal Aid Centre (PLACE) v Sudan
Date of decision: 04 May 2018
Region/country: Africa / Sudan
The Committee found the Respondent: violated its obligation under Article 3 of the Charter on non-discrimination; violated Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the Charter on the right to nationality and the prevention of statelessness; as a consequence of the above violations, also violated Article 11 of the Charter on the right to education; and did not violate Articles 18(1) and 19(1) of the Charter on…
-
Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs
Date of decision: 08 June 2022
Region/country: Asia / Australia
Is s36B supported by a head of Commonwealth legislative power? The Court rejected Mr Alexander’s argument that s36B is not within the power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to ‘naturalization and aliens’ under s51(xix) of the Constitution. The Court considered that the Constitution left it to Parliament to decide who shall be granted the status of citizenship and what that status may…
-
Andrejeva v. Latvia
Date of decision: 18 February 2009
Region/country: Europe / Latvia
The Court rejected the preliminary objections concerning victim status and jurisdiction, finding that the Government had lodged each inadmissibility complaint out of time according to the Rules of the Court. These objections were also dismissed on substantive grounds, with the Court holding that the Applicant’s situation remained unchanged despite the passing of the 2008 Latvia–Russia agreement, and consequently that her status as a victim under…
-
Anonymous vs Federal Government of Germany (BVerwG 5 C 12.10)
Date of decision: 11 November 2010
Region/country: Europe / Germany
The Appellant’s application for judicial review was dismissed. Legality of the Decision to Withdraw Citizenship The Court held that the Appellee’s decision to withdraw the Appellant’s citizenship on 4 July 2000 had sufficient legal basis. Even though the withdrawal provision applicable to cases of naturalisation by deception did not exist at the time the decision was made (section 35, German Nationality Act (‘StAG’), the public…
Page 1 of 10 for 100 cases
This initiative has been made possible with the support of UNHCR, the European Network on Statelessness, and Mallesons.