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.
3 cases found
-
AS (Guinea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Date of decision: 12 October 2018
Region/country: Europe / United Kingdom
The Court determined that a person claiming to be stateless must provide evidence satisfying the standard of balance of probabilities and must apply for nationality as part of that evidence. It did not have to determine whether statelessness was relevant to the revocation of a deportation order because the appellant had not established that he was stateless. In its reasoning, the court held that the…
-
D.Z. v Netherlands
Date of decision: 20 January 2021
Region/country: Europe / Netherlands
The Committee highlighted that, under Article 24(1), the primary consideration in decisions relating to a minor must be the best interests of the minor concerned as it forms an integral part of every child’s right to measures of protection. The Committee noted that, according to the UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 4, States must recognise an individual as not having the nationality of a State…
-
Secretary of State for the Home Department v E3 and N3
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…
- 1
This initiative has been made possible with the support of UNHCR, the European Network on Statelessness, and Mallesons.