Legal briefing: Statelessness and the right to respect for private and family life October 2024 determine statelessness would therefore enable the State to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 ECHR, and, in accordance with Article 53 ECHR, its obligations under international human rights law, in particular the 1954 Convention. 2.2. Family reunification The ECtHR has previously found that the meaning of family life under Article 8 includes a right to family reunification for refugees, imposing corresponding obligations on States,87 which is a standard that applies to all refugees regardless of their nationality status, including stateless refugees.88 In Tanda-Muzinga v. France, the Court also emphasised the importance of the family unit for the enjoyment of private life, stating also that "family reunion was an essential element in enabling persons who have fled persecution to resume a normal life".89 The Court also held that States are under certain procedural obligations when processing requests for family reunification, namely that decisionmaking must guarantee “flexibility, promptness and effectiveness”90 and “give due consideration to the applicant’s specific situation”.91 The ECtHR has determined that while States have a certain margin of appreciation regarding family reunification, refugees should benefit from “a family reunification procedure that is more favourable than that foreseen for other [non-nationals]”92 and the margin of appreciation is narrower in cases concerning vulnerable persons, such as stateless persons and refugees.93 Difficulties evidencing statelessness, and the fact that stateless persons often lack documentation to demonstrate their family links by nature of their status, must be taken into account.94 Denying stateless persons and refugees the right to family reunification solely on the basis that they are not able to provide the documentation required, would be an interference which may be disproportionate and not justified under Article 8(2), in which case would amount to a violation of the ECHR. The ECtHR is currently considering this question in a pending case, Suji v. Greece.95 The right of stateless persons to family reunification can also be inferred from Article 32 of the 1954 Convention, requiring Contracting States to facilitate “ as far as possible […] the assimilation and naturalization of stateless persons”, which implies family reunification given the importance of the family unit.96 Similarly, the travaux 87 ECtHR, M.A. v. Denmark (application no. 6697/18), 9 July 2021, paragraph 135. The Court is yet to rule in a case specifically concerning family reunification in the context of statelessness. See ECtHR, Suji v. Greece (application no. 13250/23), communicated 20 September 2023; see also AIRE Centre, Dutch Refugee Council, ECRE and ENS joint third-party intervention before the ECtHR (23 February 2024), available at: https://www.statelessness.eu/updates/news/ens-aire-centre-ecre-and-dcr-intervene-ecthr-suji-v-greece. 89 ECtHR, Tanda-Muzinga v. France (application no. 2260/10), 10 July 2014, paragraph 75. 90 ECtHR, M.A. v. Denmark (application no. 6697/18), 9 July 2021, paragraph 138. 91 ECtHR, Tanda-Muzinga v. France (application no. 2260/10), 10 July 2014, paragraph 82. 92 ECtHR, Tanda-Muzinga v. France (application no. 2260/10), 10 July 2014, paragraph 75. 93 ECtHR, Hoti v. Croatia (application no. 63311/14), 26 July 2018, paragraph 122. 94 Fisher, B. (2022) ’The Travaux Préparatoires of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons’, p. 119. See also, ECtHR, Hoti v. Croatia (application no. 63311/14), 26 July 2018, paragraphs 126, 136-137. 95 ECtHR, Suji v. Greece (application no. 13250/23), communicated 20 September 2023. See also AIRE Centre, Dutch Refugee Council, ECRE and ENS joint third-party intervention before the ECtHR (23 February 2024). 96 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, Article 32. 88 18