-
Date of decision: 21 November 2019
Region/country: Europe / United Kingdom
The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State's appeal. The Court found that SIAC had made two legal errors: First, SIAC applied the wrong approach to the burden of proof. The Court held that ‘the burden of proof on the issue of statelessness was on E3 and N3 throughout,’ not on the Secretary of State. Once the Secretary of State had demonstrated that she…
-
Date of decision: 10 January 2020
Region/country: Europe / United Kingdom
The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and affirmed that the discriminatory denial of recognition of nationality and identity documentation can amount to persecution. CBS had established that he was de facto stateless and thus entitled to refugee protection, satisfying the exception to automatic deportation under Section 33 of the UK Borders Act 2007. The Upper Tribunal also clarified the proper use of MA…
-
Date of decision: 04 November 2014
Region/country: Europe / Italy
The Supreme Court began by reaffirming that statelessness determination must go beyond formal nationality requirements and consider an applicant’s overall situation. It also recalled the 1954 Convention and Italian legislative provisions (Article 1 of the Consolidated Immigration Act; Legislative Decrees 25/2008 and 251/2007), which guarantee stateless persons the same fundamental rights as foreigners and direct access to ordinary courts, underscoring their constitutional importance. The Court…
-
Date of decision: 30 September 2021
Region/country: Europe / Ukraine
The Court noted the challenge faced by the Ukrainian authorities in organising the expulsion of the applicant due to the lack of identity documents. However, it observed that ‘no explanation has been provided for why it took the authorities, who knew about the applicant’s affirmations concerning his Russian nationality from the outset of his detention [...], almost eleven months to contact the Embassy of the…
-
Date of decision: 15 January 2007
Region/country: Europe / Latvia
The Grand Chamber’s assessment proceeded from the Chamber's 2005 judgment, which had found a violation of Article 8. The Court began by emphasising the subsidiary nature of the Convention system and addressed the Applicants’ claim that domestic law governing the Applicants’ residence entitlements had been wrongly applied. It reiterated that its role under Article 19 of the Convention is limited to ensuring compliance with the…
-
Date of decision: 12 May 2020
Region/country: Europe / Hungary
The Court applied the general principles established in Hoti v Croatia(application no. 63311/14). The Court cited in paragraphs 119-123 of that case (paragraph 31). The Court began by establishing that “the principal question to be examined…is whether, having regard to the circumstances as a whole, the Hungarian authorities, pursuant to Article 8, provided an effective and accessible procedure or a combination of procedures enabling the…
-
Date of decision: 27 February 2023
Region/country: Africa / South Africa
Factual disputes The Court rejected each and every one of the Respondent’s disputes in relation to the evidence of the Applicant on the basis that they are untenable, far-fetched, baseless and ambiguous. Late Registration of Birth: BDRA The Court was satisfied the Applicant substantially complied with the mandatory requirements to be successful with his application for the late registration of his birth. The Court was…
-
Date of decision: 22 April 2014
Region/country: Europe / Italy
The Tribunal of Rome held that while TP qualified as an Indian citizen under Indian citizenship law, he was not recognised as such by Indian authorities. The Indian Consulate in Milan refused to recognise his citizenship or issue him a passport, instead issuing a certificate confirming his Tibetan nationality, which prevented him from accessing the rights ordinarily afforded to Indian nationals. The Tribunal found that…
-
Date of decision: 22 December 2020
Region/country: Europe / Russia
In its analysis, the Court examined the annulment of nationality and the decision to forcibly remove the Applicant from Russian territory separately, as the annulment did not automatically result in removal, and the lower courts examined the issues separately. On the Annulment of Nationality The Court began by outlining its general principles concerning the scope of Article 8, explaining that while the right to ‘private…
-
Date of decision: 14 December 2021
Region/country: Europe / Bulgaria
The CJEU first noted the duty of Member States to have due regard for EU law when establishing their national rules relating to the acquisition of citizenship. The Referring Court had accepted that the child had Bulgarian citizenship and under Article 20(1) of the TFEU and is consequently a citizen of the European Union. The CJEU then noted that as a result of the freedom…