Case Law Search

The case concerns the refusal of Serbia for seven years to grant a travel document to the applicant, a Syrian national who had been granted refugee status in Serbia and whose passport expired. This was due to a failure by the Ministry of the Interior to enact regulations that govern the content and design of travel documents for refugees to implement the Asylum Act, which prevented the applicant from travelling outside Serbia for several years. Finding that this refusal curtailed the applicant’s right to leave Serbia freely, to the extent that it impaired the essence of this right and deprived it of its effectiveness, the Court found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 ECHR.

A stateless person of Palestinian origin, who lived in one of UNRWA’s areas of operations in Lebanon, made an asylum application in France claiming that it was impossible for UNRWA to provide him with sufficient access to medical care and appropriate living conditions required by his health condition. The Council of State (Conseil d’État) submitted a request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU. The Court followed Advocate General Emilou’s opinion and found that UNRWA’s protection or assistance must be considered to have ceased when UNRWA is unable to ensure that the person ‘has access to the healthcare and medical treatment without which that person is exposed to a real risk of imminent death or to a real risk of suffering a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health or a significant reduction in life expectancy’. The existence of that risk is for the national court to assess. 

The Italian authorities refused to transcribe the applicant's Ukrainian birth certificate, either in full or in part. The applicant, who was born through gestational surrogacy in Ukraine, was consequently denied a legal parent-child relationship with her intended parents under Italian law, as well as any nationality. The Court ruled that the Italian authorities' refusal to transcribe the birth certificate, even in part, prevented the establishment of a legal parent-child relationship between the applicant and her biological father, which was in contradiction with Article 8 ECHR.

The authorities in Azerbaijan terminated the nationality of an independent journalist and chairman of an NGO for the protection of journalists, rendering him stateless. The Court found that such measure had been arbitrary and in violation of Article 8 ECHR, given that it rendered the applicant stateless, in disregard for the 1961 Convention, and was not accompanied by due procedural safeguards. In the particular circumstances of the case, for the purposes of examining the arbitrariness of the decision terminating the applicant’s nationality, the Court did not consider it necessary to establish whether the applicant’s renunciation of his nationality was forced or voluntary, which was a matter in dispute between the parties.

Switzerland refused to issue a residence permit to an elderly foreign national from Iran, who had been living in the country for over 50 years and cited strong family and social ties in Switzerland. The applicant was residing unlawfully because a deportation decision issued against him had not been enforced due to the lack of an Iranian passport. The Court found that Switzerland breached its positive obligation under Article 8 ECHR to regularise a foreigner who was unlawfully present, and found that a fair balance had not been struck between the public interest and his right to respect for private life.

The Supreme Court held that an asylum seeker may maintain during the appeal phase the benefits received during the asylum procedure, in particular the right to reside and work in Spain.

The case concerns the challenge before the French Court of Cassation (Cour de Cassation) of a refusal by the Court of Appeal of Rennes to register on the French civil registries the birth certificate of a child who was born in Canada as a result of a surrogacy procedure, and the recognition of parental relationship between that child and one of the applicants. In this case, both parents were a couple of men. The Cour de Cassation ruled in favour of the applicants and ordered the registration of the child's birth certificate on the French registries, designating both parents as fathers of the child.

The Appellant’s appeal to prevent his deportation to Algeria was brought on Articles 3 and 8 ECHR grounds. The Appellant submitted that he was at real risk of destitution (Article 3) and / or would face very serious obstacles to his integration into Algeria on account of his mental health (Article 8). The Upper Tribunal refused the Article 3 ECHR part of the appeal but granted the appeal on Article 8 ECHR grounds. 

The Appellants were appealing the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (the “FtT”). The Appellants brought their appeal on two grounds: i) the FtT had failed to provide a properly reasoned finding regarding the nationality of the Appellants; and ii) the FtT had failed to properly consider the risk of returning the Appellants to Iran on account of their being ethnically Kurdish. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the Appellants’ appeal. 

The court found that, despite the Ministry of Interior’s refusal to issue identity documents to persons applying to be recognised stateless, applicants have the right to be issued with an ID. The court referred to UNHCR Guidelines and to its previous ruling, according to which the analogy with the asylum procedure should be preserved regardless of whether statelessness determination is regulated under the Asylum Act or the Immigration Act (following a legislative amendment in 2021).

In a dispute concerning court jurisdiction, the Supreme Administrative Court recognised the special circumstances of the claimant in an application for the determination of statelessness, and ruled that the court which would have been competent in an asylum procedure should continue the proceedings.

The case concerns a stateless adult who was born out of wedlock and who applied to be recognised as a legitimate child of his father. The court found that Greek law was applicable but dismissed the case as inadmissible.

The applicant is a stateless Palestinian and unaccompanied minor who was granted asylum in Greece in 2016 together with his father and slibings. Due to neglect by the father, the applicant and his siblings were placed in care and the prosecutor decided it was in their best intersts to return to the Occupied Palestinian Territory to reunite them with their mother. The application concerns the decision to return him to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which the children were opposed to, the reception conditions in Greece, and the failure to appoint a guardian. The Court decided to strike the application as inadmissible as the applicant was no longer at risk of being returned to the Occupied Palestinian Territory when the decision was revoked by the authorities.

The applicant is a permanent resident who was previously granted subsidiary protection after fleeing his country of origin. Lithuanian authorities refused to issue a travel document to the applicant on the grounds that the applicant could request such a document from the authorities of his country of origin. The Court held that there had been a violation under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the Convention. 

The applicant originally from Azerbaijan unsuccessfully applied for statelessness status in France following the rejection of his asylum claim. The Court found that in his application for statelessness status, the applicant did not show that the legal provisions governing the law of nationality in the countries with which he had a link were not applicable to him or were not applied to him by the authorities of these countries, and he did not provide evidence of having made 'repeated and assiduous approaches' to the authorities of these countries to be recognised a national, or of having been refused nationality by them after examination of his application. Moreover, the applicant cannot simply invoke the absence of registration in a country if he has resided in said country for a long time.

The applicants were detained in Russia in view of their expulsion respectively to Ukraine and Georgia. They claimed to be stateless but the Russian authorities did not properly assess whether the removal remained a ‘realistic prospect’ throughout detention, thus the Court found a breach of Article 5 ECHR. 

This communication to the Committee on the Rights of the Child was submitted by nationals of Finland on behalf of the applicants’ own child relatives and on behalf of 33 other children who are held in the Hawl camp in the north-east of Syria. The children's parents are allegedly associated with the Islamic State. The applicants claim that Finland’s refusal to assist or repatriate these children despite knowing they were at risk of irreparable harm violates Articles 2, 6, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 37, 39, and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as Article 7 of the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The Committee finds the communication filed on behalf of the applicants’ own child relatives admissible and that Finland violated Articles 6(1) and 37 (a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This case concerns the initial refusal of the Italian authorities to recognise the applicant, a stateless person of Slovenian origin, as stateless. He complained this refusal resulted in him being unable to regularise his stay in Italy and constitutes a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. The applicant also complained under Article 14 of the ECHR, citing discrimination in access to Italian nationality and under Article 13 due to the lack of an effective domestic remedy. The Court declared his application inadmissible, as it found that the applicant was no longer a victim of a violation because, after the application was submitted, an Italian court recognised his statelessness status in 2013.

This case concerns a stateless Palestinian who grew up in a refugee camp in Lebanon, the Ein El-Hilweh camp, before applying for asylum in the Netherlands. The Court considered that the general information submitted shows a substantial deterioration in the situation for Palestinian stateless people in Lebanon and in particular in the Ein El-Hilweh camp. The Court found that the Secretary of State’s decision was flawed and that it must reconsider the application considering relevant factors, including whether UNRWA’s support met minimum requirements. An appeal is pending.

Denmark refused to grant the applicant an exemption from the language proficiency requirement and the nationality test in order to become naturalised. The applicant claimed that Denmark violated his rights under Article 26 of the Covenant. The Human Rights Committee considered that, in failing to provide the applicant with any information about the reasoning in its decision on his application or the grounds for refusing his application for an exemption from the language proficiency requirement and the nationality test, Denmark had failed to demonstrate that its decision was based on reasonable and objective grounds. Therefore, the Committee found that the applicant's rights under Article 26 of the Covenant had been violated.

The applicant claimed that Finland violated Articles 8 and 14 ECHR when Finnish authorities allegedly arbitrarily denied him Finnish nationality, despite statements issued by the Russian authorities on his nationality status and the fact that he did not acquire Russian nationality at birth, contrary to the decision of the Finnish authorities based on their interpretation of Russian nationality law. The Court found the application manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible, and held that the Russian authorities’ statements on the applicant’s nationality status, while ambiguous, could imply that he had acquired Russian nationality at the time of his birth.

The applicants, a mother and daughter, are of Russian origin and lived in Latvia. They were deported from Latvia and detained in the process. The husband and father of the applicants was a retired Soviet officer, ordered to leave Latvia together with his family in accordance with the Latvian-Russian treaty on the withdrawal of Russian troops following Latvian independence. The Court found that ordering the applicants’ deportation failed to consider their individual circumstances and the private life they had built in Latvia and violated their Article 8 right to respect for private life.

The case concerns the refusal to grant legal recognition in France to parent-child relationships that had been legally established in the United States for a child born as a result of surrogacy arrangement. The French authorities refused to transcribe the birth certificate of the child into the French civil status registry on the grounds that it would be contrary to public order. The three applicants complained that the refusal to acknowledge the filiation of the parents and child applicant under French law violated Article 8 ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights found that France violated the child's right to respect for her private life in breach of Article 8 ECHR.

In a case concerning a Dutch national associated with ISIS, the Council of State ruled that the decisions from the Dutch authorities to declare the applicant undesirable and to withdraw her Dutch nationality should be annulled on the grounds that they did not sufficiently take into consideration the best interests of her minor children and her right to family life.

The applicants’ request for family reunification was upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal in Luxembourg. The Court ruled that the appeal was well-founded and that the disputed refusal decision of the Court of first instance must be annulled. The Administrative Court of Appeal underlined that, by rejecting the family reunification application, the Ministry of Immigration and Asylum disproportionately infringed the child’s right to respect for her private and family life in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR and disregarded the best interests of the child, protected by Article 24 of the Charter and Article 5 of Directive 2003/86/EC.