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.
13 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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Johansen v. Denmark
Date of decision: 01 February 2022
Region/country: Europe / Denmark
On Deprivation of Nationality The Court reiterated that while the right to nationality is not guaranteed under the Convention, arbitrary deprivation of nationality may raise issues under Article 8 ECHR because nationality forms part of personal identity. It subsequently applied a two-step test established in previous jurisprudence: whether the revocation was arbitrary, and the consequences for the Applicant. On arbitrariness, the Court found that Section…
-
K2 v. United Kingdom
Date of decision: 07 February 2017
Region/country: Europe / United Kingdom
The Court addressed the complaint in two parts, first considering the alleged violation of Article 8 and then the alleged violation of Article 14 read together with Article 8. The Article 8 analysis was also divided into two parts, the first on the deprivation of citizenship and the second on the exclusion from the UK. On Deprivation of Citizenship Following its established methodology, the Court…
-
N3 (AP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & ZA (AP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Date of decision: 26 February 2025
Region/country: Europe / United Kingdom
The Supreme Court held that if a deprivation order is withdrawn, it is to be treated as having no effect for the purpose of determining an individual’s citizenship status in the period from the date of the making of the order until it is withdrawn. The outcome was that E3 and N3 were regarded as having British citizenship throughout this period, and ZA qualified for…
-
Partial Award, Civilians Claims, Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23 & 27–32 Between the State of Eritrea and The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Date of decision: 17 December 2004
Region/country: Africa / Eritrea, Ethiopia
The Commission found that the issuance of Eritrean nationality cards to enable participation in the 1993 Referendum did carry important legal consequences, including the acquisition of Eritrean nationality in fact. While the governing entity issuing the cards was not yet formally recognised as an independent State, it otherwise reflected the characteristics of a State in international law. The Commission first considered the legal consequences of…
-
Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Date of decision: 25 March 2015
Region/country: Europe / United Kingdom
The Supreme Court ruled that the decision by the UK Home Secretary to strip the Appellant of British citizenship did not make him stateless, because the Appellant still held Vietnamese citizenship ‘under the operation of its law’ (Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons) at the time that decision was made. The Supreme Court first analysed the interpretation of…
-
Regina (Begum) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Date of decision: 26 February 2021
Region/country: Europe / United Kingdom
The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal misunderstood the scope of an appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State to refuse a person leave to enter the UK, as the scope is confined to assessing if the decision is in accordance with Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. As Ms Begum did not advance that argument before the Court of…
- 1
- 2
Page 1 of 2 for 13 cases
This initiative has been made possible with the support of UNHCR, the European Network on Statelessness, and Mallesons.