The applicant applied for but was denied recognition as a stateless person. In deciding the case, the Judicial Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court declared that to be “stateless”, a person must not be considered a national by any State under the relevant legislation. While the applicant provided contradictory information as to her place of birth, the Court found that she appeared to have been born in Belarus and, as such, was entitled to Belarusian nationality and therefore not stateless.
- 1954 Statelessness Convention, Instrument of accession of Spain to the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons of 4 July 1978, article 27;
- Spanish Constitution, articles 13 and 24;
- Belarusian Law on Nationality of 18 October 1991 (Belarusian Law on Nationality);
- Organic Law 4/2000 of 11 January 2000 on the rights and freedoms of foreigners in Spain and their social integration (Organic Law 4/2000), articles 4 and 34;
- Organic Law 8/2000, of 22 December 2000, which amends Organic Law 4/2000 (Organic Law 8/2000); and
- Royal Decree 865/2001 of 20 July 2001, articles 1 and 13.
The applicant made contradictory claims in her separate applications for asylum and for recognition of her stateless status. In her application for recognition as a stateless person, she claimed that she was born in Poland, and that she acquired a Soviet Union passport after living many years in several parts of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). She allegedly lost her Soviet nationality after the dissolution of the USSR.
Meanwhile, in her 2000 and 2004 applications for asylum, the applicant stated that her place of birth was Belarus, not Poland, and that she had Belarusian nationality.
The fact of her Belarusian nationality also appeared to be supported by other allegations and documents the applicant filed in the statelessness proceedings.
The applicant argued that, under Spain’s Instrument of Accession to the 1954 Statelessness Convention, she did not bear the burden of proving her statelessness. Rather, it suffices that she declare that she does not bear any nationality for her to be recognised as a stateless person.
The applicant claimed that there was no document proving that she was born in Poland and therefore no basis to apply Polish law. Nor could the laws of the Russian Federation or Belarus apply to her as she claimed that she had not lived long enough in either country to have obtained their respective nationalities.
The General State Administration appeared in the statelessness proceedings as opposing party, but its arguments were not explicitly addressed in this judgment.
The Court agreed with the applicant that under Organic Law 8/2000, she does not need to give “full and conclusive” proof that her country of origin does not recognise her nationality:
“Consequently, even though the applicable legislation, summarised in the judgment we have just transcribed, does not require applicants for statelessness status to provide full and conclusive proof that their country of origin does not recognise their nationality, this does not mean that a mere declaration to that effect by the applicant is sufficient in itself to establish the truth of their claim, as there must be some information from which it can be inferred that the situation is indeed as the applicant claims” (In Spanish: Por consiguiente, aun cuando la normativa de aplicación, resumida en la sentencia que acabamos de transcribir, no exige al solicitante del estatuto de apátrida una prueba plena y acabada de que su país de origen no le reconoce su nacionalidad, eso no significa que la mera declaración en tal sentido del propio solicitante sirva por sí sola para tener por cierta su afirmación, pues habrá de existir algún dato a partir del cual pueda colegirse que efectivamente las cosas son como el solicitante expone.).
However, the Court held there must still be some evidence to corroborate the applicant’s claim of statelessness, which refers to “the circumstance that the applicant ‘is not considered a national by any State, in accordance with its legislation" (In Spanish: "la circunstancia de que la persona solicitante "no sea considerada como nacional suyo por ningún Estado, conforme a su legislación").
In this case, there are apparent inconsistencies in the applicant's statements regarding her place of birth. While she initially stated that she was born in Poland, evidence suggested that she was, in fact, born in Belarus.
Under the Belarusian Law on Nationality, citizens of the former USSR born in Belarus may obtain Belarusian nationality. Passports issued by the USSR are also considered valid identification documents under this law.
In this context, the Court deemed the applicant's claim that her passport had been stolen is irrelevant to the determination of statelessness. Consistent with its previous case law, the Court affirmed that the absence of a physical passport does not equate to the lack of nationality or statelessness.
The Spanish Supreme Court confirmed the National Court judgment, and the applicant’s statelessness recognition application was denied.
No other relevant materials found.
- Supreme Court judgment, of 20 November 2007 on legal requirements to grant statelessness recognition;
- Supreme Court judgment, of 22 December 2008 on burden of proof of statelessness applicants after Organic Law 8/2000 which amended Organic Law 4/2000 on rights and freedoms of foreigners in Spain; and
- Supreme Court judgment, of 12 May 2008, which stated that lacking a passport does not amount to lacking a nationality.
There were no third party interventions.