The competent authority argued that an applicant born in the former Soviet Union who was recognised as stateless might still be an Uzbek national, relying on the assumption that they could theoretically still claim this nationality. However, under Uzbek law, a person who lives abroad for over five years without consular registration loses their nationality, which was the case of the applicant. The court therefore ruled that there was no evidence that they were considered as such or as a national of any other country.
- Article 2 of the Dutch Statelessness Determination Procedure Act (Wet van 7 juni 2023, houdende regels met betrekking tot de vaststelling van staatloosheid, Staatsblad 2023, 230 - Wet vaststellingsprocedure staatloosheid)
- Article 21 of the Act of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the citizenship of the Republic of Uzbekistan of 2 July 1992
The applicant was born in 1960 in the former Soviet-Union, where Uzbekistan is currently located.
During an asylum procedure in the Netherlands, the applicant declared to have left her place of residence in the Republic of Uzbekistan on 18 April 2001, arriving in the Netherlands on 26 April 2001.
At the time of the court case, the applicant is registered in the Register of Persons (Basisregistratie Personen) in the Netherlands with an “unknown identity” (nationaliteit onbekend).
On 14 June 2021, the applicant filed a request for the rectification of inaccurate personal data. They requested to change their status of “unknown identity” to “stateless”.
The request to change applicant’s status to “stateless” was denied on 14 December 2021. The decision to deny the request was upheld both during the objection process and upon appeal.
The parties in the case are aligned that the applicant had an immediate interest in her request to determine statelessness. Parties are furthermore aligned in their understanding that there are no reasons to believe it can be determined that the applicant is currently considered a national of the Russian Federation.
The dispute focusses on the question whether the applicant is stateless at the moment of the court case.
NB: From a decision (beschikking) of the Dutch State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid) made know by the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst, IND) it follows that applicant has received a regular residence permit (verblijfsvergunning regulier) with a validity from 15 April 2022 to 15 April 2027. The IND will provide a residence document to the applicant.
The applicant stated that they are not a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
They provided evidence by way of a statement of the Migration, Naturalization and Nationality Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan (Dienst Migratie, Naturalisatie en Nationaliteit van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken van de Republiek Oezbekistan) of 27 July 2018 which states that they do not consider applicant a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
The IND believes that the applicant is a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
The IND states that the place of birth referenced by applicant in the Dutch asylum procedure differs from the place of birth included in the statement of the Uzbek government, so that it cannot be determined with certainty if this statement indeed relates to the applicant.
The IND furthermore states that it is unclear to them how applicant received a valid birth certificate from the Uzbek registers in 2002 but is on the other hand unknown in the Uzbek registers regarding registered and unregistered persons.
Firstly, the court stated that it cannot determine with sufficient certainty if the applicant received nationality of Uzbekistan after the collapse of the former Soviet-Union. The court however determined this to be irrelevant for the underlying court case (“Dit is voor de beoordeling van het onderhavige verzoek echter ook niet doorslaggevend”) as it is to be considered whether the applicant can be considered a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan at the moment of the court hearing.
To analyze whether the applicant can be considered a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the court refers to Article 21 of the “Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the Citizenship of the Republic of Uzbekistan” of 2 July 1992, stating a provision is included regarding the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
The court mentions: "This article – insofar as relevant here – reads: “Loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Uzbekistan takes place:
(…)
2 if a person who resides permanently abroad has, without valid reason, not registered with the relevant consular representation for five years;
(…) The loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Uzbekistan becomes effective from the moment of issuance of a decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan.”."
The court continues to use Article 21 of the “Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the Citizenship of the Republic of Uzbekistan” of 2 July 1992 for its further analysis.
For the current situation, the court did not see sufficient reason in the statements of the IND to question the validity of the statement of the Uzbek government. It held that the place of birth of the applicant as included in the statement of the Uzbek government aligns with the place of birth of the applicant as included in their birth certificate.
The Court further stated that the fact that the applicant obtained the birth certificate does not detract from the content of the statement of the Uzbek government. In particular, the fact that the applicant obtained a birth certificate in 2002 does not mean that the applicant should have been included in the list of registered and unregistered persons in 2018 (“Immers, het enkele feit dat zij in 2002 een geboorteakte heeft kunnen verkrijgen, brengt niet mee dat zij in 2018 op de lijst van ingeschreven of uitgeschreven personen moet hebben gestaan”).
No other documents have been made part of the procedure that proof that the statement of the Uzbek government is incorrect. Based on this, the court determined that the contents of the statement of the Uzbek government must be correct and can therefore be used in her judgment.
The court determined that it has not become apparent that the applicant is, based on its legislation, a national of Uzbekistan. The court therefore granted the request for a statelessness declaration to the applicant and determined her statelessness (“De rechtbank stelt vast dat niet is gebleken dat verzoekster door enige staat, krachtens diens wetgeving, als onderdaan wordt beschouwd. De rechtbank zal het verzoek van verzoekster dan ook toewijzen en haar staatloosheid vaststellen.”).
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.