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.
100 cases found
-
NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
Date of decision: 28 November 2023
Region/country: Asia / Australia
The Court held that the plaintiff was unsuccessful in his argument that his continuing detention was not authorised on the proper construction of ss 189(1) and 196(1) of the Migration Act but succeeded in his claim that his continuing detention contravened Ch III of the Constitution. The court discussed the construction of 189(1) Migration Act (imposing a duty on an officer to detain a person…
-
OMCT & Others v Rwanda
Date of decision: 31 October 1996
Region/country: Africa / Rwanda
Noting the Government of Rwanda’s lack of substantive response despite repeated notifications, the Commission applied its established principle that uncontested allegations of serious human rights abuse may be treated as given, and proceeded to assess the facts as presented by the Complainants. The Commission found violations of: non‑discrimination under Article 2 of the Charter, as the denial of numerous rights was based on individuals’ Tutsi…
-
Open Society Justice Initiative v Côte d’Ivoire
Date of decision: 28 February 2015
Region/country: Africa / Côte d’Ivoire
The African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (‘the Commission’) found that Côte d’Ivoire’s nationality regime, characterised by vague definitions and excessive discretion granted to State authorities, resulted in the arbitrary denial of nationality and widespread statelessness (both practically and theoretically), particularly affecting the Dioula ethnic group and other northern populations. Although the African Charter does not explicitly guarantee a right to nationality, the Commission…
-
Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy
Date of decision: 24 January 2017
Region/country: Europe / Italy
The Court held, by eleven votes to six, that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the ECHR. ‘Family life’ within the meaning of Article 8 of the ECHR The Court concluded that there was no family life (or de facto family life) between the Applicants and the child within the meaning of Article 8 of the ECHR, due to the lack of…
-
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…
-
Petropavlovskis v. Latvia
Date of decision: 13 January 2015
Region/country: Europe / Latvia
The Court began by recalling its general principles under Articles 10 and 11, noting that freedom of expression and association are fundamental to a democratic society and restrictions must be narrowly construed. However, these provisions cannot be invoked to undermine the values of democracy, and states may take measures to protect themselves provided such measures are proportionate and lawful. The Court also reiterated that the…
-
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…
-
Q v Denmark
Date of decision: 01 April 2015
Region/country: Europe / Denmark
Admissibility The UN Human Rights Committee (“HRC”) rejected the State Party’s argument that Art 26 did not apply to the author’s claim. The HRC considered that Art 26 applies to the legislation of States and prohibits discrimination in any field regulated and protected by public authorities. Accordingly, the author’s claim under Art 26 was held to be admissible. Article 26 The HRC reaffirmed that Art…
-
Qureshi v Cabinet Secretary for Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination of National Government and Others
Date of decision: 07 November 2019
Region/country: Africa / Kenya
The Court found that the Applicant had a legal right to apply for citizenship and that the Respondents had a corresponding legal duty to register the Applicant if she fulfilled the Constitution’s requirements for citizenship. The Court noted that the Applicant had re-submitted her application to the Second Respondent during the proceedings and that the Respondents had confirmed ‘the citizenship committee will be sitting next…
-
Ramadan v Malta
Date of decision: 21 June 2016
Region/country: Europe / Malta
On Admissibility The Court found that the Applicant was not a victim due to a violation of Article 8 regarding the deportation, but he was a victim regarding the revocation of his citizenship. The Court held that ‘an Applicant cannot claim to be the ‘victim’ of a deportation measure if the measure is not enforceable’, which applies ‘in cases where execution of the deportation order…
Page 7 of 10 for 100 cases
This initiative has been made possible with the support of UNHCR, the European Network on Statelessness, and Mallesons.