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.
19 cases found
-
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…
-
East African Asians v The United Kingdom
Date of decision: 14 December 1973
Region/country: Europe / United Kingdom
The Commission considered that the six applications brought by British protected persons must be distinguished from the 25 cases of CUKCs as British protected persons, according to English law, are not British subjects and remained subject to immigration control under the 1962 Act. The Commission held that the legislation was not discriminatory and did not constitute ‘degrading treatment’ under Article 3 in relation to British…
-
H.P. v Denmark
Date of decision: 19 January 2017
Region/country: Europe / Denmark
Article 8 The Court noted that Article 8 does not guarantee a right to acquire a particular nationality or citizenship, but acknowledged that an arbitrary denial of citizenship could, in certain circumstances, raise an issue under Article 8 due to its impact on private life. ‘Article 8 of the Convention does not guarantee a right to acquire a particular nationality or citizenship. Nevertheless, it cannot…
-
Habbal et al v Argentina
Date of decision: 31 August 2022
Region/country: Americas / Argentina
On Resolution 1088 (expulsion and detention orders) The Court first found that the content of Resolution 1088 and the procedure followed for its adoption ‘constituted a breach of the obligations of the State’ (paragraph 80). The Court found the Respondent (1) unlawfully ordered the expulsion of a citizen (Article 22(5)); (2) failed to follow lawful procedures for expelling lawful permanent residents (Article 22(6)); (3) denied…
-
Janko Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern
Date of decision: 02 March 2010
Region/country: Europe / Germany
The Court began by clarifying the scope of its review over national measures that affect a person’s possession of EU citizenship. It acknowledged Declaration No 2 and the Edinburgh Decision, which state that nationality is determined solely by national law, however, it held that this did not remove the situation from the scope of EU law. The Court held that while Member States have competence…
-
Kurić and Others v. Slovenia
Date of decision: 26 June 2012
Region/country: Europe / Slovenia
On Preliminary Objections On victim status, the Grand Chamber held that although Slovenia had acknowledged the breach of the Applicants’ rights and issued residence permits to six Applicants, this did not constitute ‘appropriate’ and ‘sufficient’ redress given the ‘widespread human-rights concern created by the ‘erasure’’ and the consequences for these Applicants over a nearly twenty-year period (paragraph 267). The Grand Chamber added that no compensatory…
-
Minister of Home Affairs v Ali and Others
Date of decision: 30 November 2018
Region/country: Africa / South Africa
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The Court confirmed that persons born in South Africa who meet the criteria in Section 4(3) may apply for citizenship upon attaining the age of majority irrespective of their birth date relative to 1 January 2013, on the following basis: Counsel for the Appellants conceded on appeal that the Respondents satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of Section 4(3). The concession…
-
Mulowayi and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another
Date of decision: 29 January 2019
Region/country: Africa / South Africa
The Court held that the High Court’s declaration of invalidity of regulation 3(2)(a) did not need confirmation, because Section 172(2)(a) of the Constitution only requires confirmation for Acts of Parliament, provincial laws, or conduct by the President, not for regulations made by Ministers. As a result, the Applicants’ request for confirmation was refused as unnecessary. The Court also found that the High Court had erred…
- 1
- 2
Page 1 of 2 for 19 cases
This initiative has been made possible with the support of UNHCR, the European Network on Statelessness, and Mallesons.