Legal briefing: Statelessness and the right to respect for private and family life October 2024 non-national residents201 of a country may amount to discrimination, as can different treatment due to nationality202 or migration status.203 A disproportionate interference with private and family life must be prejudicial to a particular group, regardless of whether the impact is aimed at that group.204 For example, where an individual is excluded from accessing a public service solely on the basis of their nationality, while satisfying all other substantive requirements, it will amount to discrimination.205 Denying individuals access to public services, employment, or healthcare may fall within the scope of Article 8 due to the impact such an interference may have on said person’s ability to lead a normal private life.206 These points apply similarly for persons discriminated against on the basis of their nationality status, i.e., stateless persons. The principle of non-discrimination has also been addressed in the context of stateless persons being denied the opportunity to regularise their status. This is particularly the case where imposed requirements are difficult or challenging to fulfil or where the regularisation mechanism is not effective or accessible. In such cases, this amounts to a difference in treatment relative to other persons in similar situations, such as asylum seekers or other foreigners.207 Where there is a difference in treatment, the relevant State must show that it was justified.208 In this respect, the ECtHR will examine whether the difference in treatment pursues a legitimate aim under Article 14 ECHR209 and whether there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aims pursued.210 Stateless persons may also face discrimination in conjunction with the right to private and family life in accessing a route to naturalisation; through the use of arbitrary detention and expulsion; as well as restrictions to their economic and social rights and civil and political rights. 201 ECtHR, K2 v. the United Kingdom (application no. 42387/13), 7 February 2017, paragraph 71. ECtHR, Gaygusuz v. Austria (application no. 17371/90), 16 September 1996, paragraph 42; ECtHR, Koua Poirrez v. France, application no. 40892/98, 30 September 2003, paragraph 46; ECtHR, Andrejeva v. Latvia (application no. 55707/00), 18 February 2009, paragraph 87. 203 ECtHR, Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom (application no. 22341/09), 6 November 2012, paragraph 47; ECtHR, Bah v. the United Kingdom (application no. 56328/07), 27 December 2011, paragraph 43. 204 ECtHR, Kurić and others v. Slovenia (application no. 26828/06), 26 June 2012, paragraph 388. 205 ECtHR, Andrejeva v. Latvia (application no. 55707/00), 18 February 2009, paragraph 88; ECtHR, Gaygusuz v. Austria (application no. 17371/90), 16 September 1996, paragraph 47. 206 ECtHR, Genovese v. Malta (application no. 53124/09), 11 October 2011, paragraph 30. 207 ECtHR, Kurić and others v. Slovenia (application no. 26828/06), 26 June 2012, paragraph 392. See also 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). 208 ECtHR, Biao v. Denmark (application no. 38590/10), 24 May 2016, paragraph 92; ECtHR, Kurić and others v. Slovenia (application no. 26828/06), 26 June 2012, paragraph, 389. 209 For example, see Council of Europe, Guide on Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, Updated 31 August 2021, pp.18-19. 202 ECtHR, Kurić and others v. Slovenia (application no. 26828/06), 26 June 2012, paragraph 386; ECtHR, Gaygusuz v. Austria (application no. 17371/90), 16 September 1996, paragraph 42. 210 34