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.
39 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…
-
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…
-
Anudo Ochieng Anudo v United Republic of Tanzania
Date of decision: 22 March 2018
Region/country: Africa / Tanzania
The Court noted that the application invoked the violation of three fundamental rights (in addition to other incidental rights): (i) the rights under Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to nationality and not to be arbitrarily deprived of nationality; (ii) the right under Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) not to be arbitrarily expelled; and (iii)…
-
Audiencia Provincial de Guipúzcoa
Date of decision: 11 May 2022
Region/country: Europe / Spain
On the Statelessness of the Child The Court of Appeal upheld the First Instance Court's conclusion that the child was stateless, a finding supported by an interpretation provided by a lead expert of the UNHCR, which was produced as evidence. The Government of Spain did not challenge this conclusion on appeal. Applying the definition under Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention, the Court found that…
-
Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic
Date of decision: 28 August 2014
Region/country: Americas / Dominican Republic
The Court found that the State had violated the presumed victim’s rights under the Convention, and ordered the State to pay reparations and to take administrative and legislative actions to remediate the presumed victim’s situation and to ensure these violations did not re-occur. Obligation to Prevent Statelessness The Court considered that while States have the power to determine nationality, they must exercise it in accordance…
-
Case of the Yean and Bosico Children v. The Dominican Republic
Date of decision: 08 September 2005
Region/country: Americas / Dominican Republic
The Court unanimously rejected the State’s three preliminary objections to the children’s application, and ultimately found that the State had violated several rights under the American Convention. The Court emphasised that nationality is a fundamental human right enshrined in the American Convention and as a political and legal bond that connects a person to a specific State, it allows the individual to acquire and exercise…
-
Communication No. 1959/2010 (Warsame v Canada)
Date of decision: 01 September 2011
Region/country: Americas / Canada
The HRC (by a majority) found that deporting Warsame to Somalia would violate his rights under articles 6(1), 7, 12(4), 17 and 23(1) of the ICCPR: Articles 6(1) and 7 - due to the real risk of irreparable harm he would face (p. 16). Article 12(4) – the Committee determined that Canada was Warsame’s ‘own country’ due to his cultural, social and familial ties, and…
-
Constitutional Court Decision 6/2015 (II. 25.)
Date of decision: 23 February 2015
Region/country: Europe / Hungary
The Constitutional Court had to decide whether Section 76(1) of the Third-Country Nationals Act was in accordance with the Fundamental Law of Hungary, in particular section Q(2) thereof, and therefore whether it was in line with the 1954 Convention. The Constitutional Court found the judicial initiative to be in part well-founded. It stated that the contested provision primarily affects stateless forced migrants who have never…
-
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…
Page 1 of 4 for 39 cases
This initiative has been made possible with the support of UNHCR, the European Network on Statelessness, and Mallesons.