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.
7 cases found
-
Centre for Child Law v Director-General Department of Home Affairs and Others
Date of decision: 22 September 2021
Region/country: Africa / South Africa
The majority of the Constitutional Court of South Africa held that Section 10 of the Act is unconstitutional as it is discriminatory against unmarried fathers on the basis of sex, gender and marital status, and is inconsistent with the best interests of children and their rights to dignity, equality, a name and nationality. The Court found that Section 10 of the Act resulted in a…
-
F.B. et al and D.A. et al. v France
Date of decision: 08 February 2022
Region/country: Europe; Middle East; North Africa / France
Admissibility The Committee noted that some children had been repatriated to France and that for this reason communication No. 77/2019 was moot and that its consideration should be discontinued insofar as it related to the State Party’s failure to repatriate those children. The Committee found some of the authors’ claims to be inadmissible under article 7(f) of the Optional Protocol, but that the authors’ claims…
-
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…
-
John K. Modise v Botswana
Date of decision: 06 November 2000
Region/country: Africa / Botswana
The Commission held that the Complainant acquired Botswana citizenship on 30 September 1966 by virtue of Section 20(2) of the Constitution of Botswana in force at the time. The Commission held that the denial of this right was in violation of Articles 3(2) and 5 of the Charter, which provides: ’Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law’. Article 5 on the…
-
Legal Resources Foundation v Zambia
Date of decision: 23 April 2001
Region/country: Africa / Zambia
The Commission considered the rules as potentially depriving the country of potential resources and leadership and also considered, from an individual point of view, being able to vote but not to stand for office. The Commission also considered that there were a number of Zambian citizens whose parents were not born in the Republic of Zambia. This was because before the breakup of the Central…
-
Petropavlovskis v. Latvia
Date of decision: 13 January 2015
Region/country: Europe / Latvia
The Court began by recalling its general principles under Articles 10 and 11, noting that freedom of expression and association are fundamental to a democratic society and restrictions must be narrowly construed. However, these provisions cannot be invoked to undermine the values of democracy, and states may take measures to protect themselves provided such measures are proportionate and lawful. The Court also reiterated that the…
-
Q v Denmark
Date of decision: 01 April 2015
Region/country: Europe / Denmark
Admissibility The UN Human Rights Committee (“HRC”) rejected the State Party’s argument that Art 26 did not apply to the author’s claim. The HRC considered that Art 26 applies to the legislation of States and prohibits discrimination in any field regulated and protected by public authorities. Accordingly, the author’s claim under Art 26 was held to be admissible. Article 26 The HRC reaffirmed that Art…
- 1
This initiative has been made possible with the support of UNHCR, the European Network on Statelessness, and Mallesons.