Legal briefing: Statelessness and the right to respect for private and family life October 2024 arguments, it concluded that the lower instance courts had not effectively assessed evidence indicating that the applicant was not a national of Moldova. In the United Kingdom, the courts have applied a four-stage test to assess whether leaving an individual in a state of legal ‘limbo’ due to the lack of prospect of deportation amounts to a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for private and family life. This includes i) assessing whether a deportation order has yet been made (‘prospective’ or ‘actual’ limbo), ii) determining whether the prospect of effecting deportation is remote, iii) a fact-specific analysis236, and iv) a balancing exercise between the public interests and an individual’s right to respect for private and family life and other ECHR rights. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation237 has ruled that an expulsion order would interfere with the right to private and family life where a stateless applicant had lived in Russia since childhood in the same municipality as his mother. The Supreme Court found that authorities should not interfere with the right to private and family life, save for cases where the interference is prescribed by law and deemed necessary in a democratic society. As such, the expulsion of the applicant was found to amount to a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for private and family life. However, the Fourth Cassation Court of Russia238 has subsequently considered, in a different case, that the fact that an applicant had relatives and family in Russia was not sufficient to conclude that a deportation order against him breached his right to respect for private and family life where the applicant’s criminal convictions were taken into consideration. The Court found that while the right to family life is protected under the Russian Constitution, those interests do not take precedence over other constitutionally significant values, such as the control of migration polices balanced against the risk of public danger in light of past criminal conduct. In France,239 the Council of State ruled that, even where it is rendered after the refusal of a residence permit and the issuance of a removal order, a decision recognising statelessness status of a minor child can be invoked to request the annulment of a removal order issued against their parent. The applicant sought the annulment of the removal order issued against her three months before the national authorities recognised statelessness status to her minor child. The Council of State recalled that, according to Article 31 of the 1954 Convention, a stateless person may not be removed, except on grounds of national security or public order. It further held that a removal order cannot be taken against the parent of a child recognised as stateless who lives with them, since 236 The fact-specific (stage three) analysis includes: (i) an assessment of the time already spent by the individual in the UK, their status, immigration history and family circumstances; (ii) the nature and seriousness of any offences of which they had been convicted; (iii) an assessment of the time elapsed since the decision or order to deport; (iv) an assessment of the prospects of deportation ever being achieved; and (v) whether the impossibility of achieving deportation was due in part to their conduct. See United Kingdom, RA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019], EWCA Civ 850, 17 May 2019, paragraphs 61-72. See also (now overturned) United Kingdom, R (on the application of AM) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, 17 March 2021, paragraphs 120-150. 237 Russia, Supreme Court of Russian Federation, judgment №57-АД15, 16 February 2015. 238 Russia, Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction Judgment No. 88a-10287/2020, 19 May 2020. 239 France, Council of State, judgment no 261305, 9 November 2007. 40