Legal briefing: Statelessness and the right to respect for private and family life October 2024 Summary and analysis The ECtHR has found violations of the right to respect for private and family life of stateless applicants facing removal proceedings, particularly due to the interference with the private life and home that the applicants had established in the country from which they would be deported. However, the Court could further take into consideration that statelessness constitutes a relevant individual circumstance in removal decisions. Statelessness should also be considered a juridically relevant fact in detention and removal decisions to prevent unlawful and arbitrary detention when there is no reasonable prospect of removal. This should extend to decisions concerning alternatives to detention for stateless persons.196 The jurisprudence could also go a step further in noting that States should take into account the consequences of statelessness and provide routes to regularisation for people who do not have a reasonable prospect of removal, particularly due to their statelessness. 2.6. Right to respect for private and family life in conjunction with other ECHR provisions Prohibition of discrimination Discrimination is defined by the ECtHR as “treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations”.197 Article 14 ECHR provides a non-exhaustive list of grounds for finding discrimination and must be applied in relation to another substantive right protected by the ECHR.198 Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. For unjustified discrimination in conjunction with Article 8(1) to amount to a violation, a difference in treatment must be found to place individuals at a disadvantage or to have a disproportionately prejudicial effect on their private and family life.199 For example, a difference in treatment between stateless individuals and either nationals200 or other 196 See ENS, Protecting Stateless Persons from Arbitrary Detention: An Agenda for Change (2017), p. 14. ECtHR, Kurić and others v. Slovenia (application no. 26828/06), 26 June 2012, paragraph 386; ECtHR, Andrejeva v. Latvia (application no. 55707/00), 18 February 2009, paragraph 81. 198 ECtHR, Genovese v. Malta (application no. 53124/09), 11 October 2011, paragraph 31. 199 ECtHR, Biao v. Denmark (application no. 38590/10), 24 May 2016, paragraph 130. 200 ECtHR, K2 v. the United Kingdom (application no. 42387/13), 7 February 2017, paragraph 69. 197 33