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.
29 cases found
-
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…
-
African Centre of Justice and Peace Studies (ACJPS) And People's Legal Aid Centre (PLACE) v Sudan
Date of decision: 04 May 2018
Region/country: Africa / Sudan
The Committee found the Respondent: violated its obligation under Article 3 of the Charter on non-discrimination; violated Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the Charter on the right to nationality and the prevention of statelessness; as a consequence of the above violations, also violated Article 11 of the Charter on the right to education; and did not violate Articles 18(1) and 19(1) of the Charter on…
-
Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs
Date of decision: 08 June 2022
Region/country: Asia / Australia
Is s36B supported by a head of Commonwealth legislative power? The Court rejected Mr Alexander’s argument that s36B is not within the power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to ‘naturalization and aliens’ under s51(xix) of the Constitution. The Court considered that the Constitution left it to Parliament to decide who shall be granted the status of citizenship and what that status may…
-
Anonymous vs Federal Government of Germany (BVerwG 5 C 12.10)
Date of decision: 11 November 2010
Region/country: Europe / Germany
The Appellant’s application for judicial review was dismissed. Legality of the Decision to Withdraw Citizenship The Court held that the Appellee’s decision to withdraw the Appellant’s citizenship on 4 July 2000 had sufficient legal basis. Even though the withdrawal provision applicable to cases of naturalisation by deception did not exist at the time the decision was made (section 35, German Nationality Act (‘StAG’), the public…
-
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)…
-
Emin Huseynov v Azerbaijan (No. 2)
Date of decision: 13 July 2023
Region/country: Europe / Azerbaijan
The Court found that there had been an arbitrary revocation of the Applicant’s citizenship, violating Article 8 of the Convention. The Court began their analysis by emphasising that they must follow a ‘consequence-based approach’, looking at what the consequences of the measure were for the Applicant, and whether the measure in question was arbitrary (see Usmanov v Russia). Here, the Court noted that the Applicant…
-
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…
-
Ghoumid and Others v France
Date of decision: 25 June 2020
Region/country: Europe / France
On Article 8 The Applicants argued that both their right to respect for private life and for family life had been breached. The complaint with regards to family life was deemed inadmissible, with the Court noting that ‘an order made to deprive a person of French nationality will have no effect on that person’s presence in France’ (paragraph 42), and that if the Applicants were…
-
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…
Page 1 of 3 for 29 cases
This initiative has been made possible with the support of UNHCR, the European Network on Statelessness, and Mallesons.