Legal briefing: Statelessness and the right to respect for private and family life October 2024 Although the European Court of Human Rights has not explicitly set out that States should introduce statelessness determination procedures per se, it has established on several occasions that the failure to provide accessible routes to regularisation for stateless people led to violations of Article 8 ECHR.61 In Hoti v. Croatia, the applicant was a stateless migrant who complained that his situation was uncertain due to the impossibility to regularise his residence status in Croatia. It was argued that the lack of possibility to regularise his status interfered with his right to private life under Article 8 ECHR. A stateless person of Albanian origin, whose parents had been granted refugee status in the former SFRY, had lived in Croatia for nearly 40 years, but his repeated attempts to regularise his residence were largely unsuccessful, apart from short term permits that were granted and withdrawn sporadically. The Court determined that the applicant was stateless and emphasised that statelessness was a relevant factor towards establishing Croatia’s violation of Article 8 ECHR. A similar case was brought before the Court a few years later. In Sudita Keita v. Hungary, the applicant faced difficulties regularising his legal status for 15 years, which adversely affected his ability to access healthcare and employment and the right to get married. This was mainly due to a requirement under Hungarian law that a person should be lawfully staying in the country in order to apply for statelessness status, a condition that was impossible for the applicant to fulfil due to his statelessness. In both cases, the ECtHR assessed the interpretation and application of Article 8 ECHR in the context of regularisation of the status of stateless persons. In determining whether an interference with a person’s right to respect for private life had occurred, the Court conducted an assessment that included (i) assessing the social ties established by the applicant, including the length of their stay and links with other countries or places of residence;62 (ii) establishing that the uncertainty of personal status had adverse repercussions on the applicant’s private life;63 (iii) examining whether the applicant had effective and accessible means through which to regularise their personal status, including a domestic remedy allowing the competent authority to deal with the substance of a complaint under the ECHR and grant adequate relief;64 (iv) whether any See also ENS, ‘An Obligation for Statelessness Determination under the European Convention on Human Rights?’ Discussion Paper (September 2014). 62 ECtHR, Hoti v. Croatia (application no. 63311/14), 26 July 2018, paragraphs 125, 127; ECtHR, Sudita Keita v. Hungary (application no. 42321/15), 13 May 2020, paragraphs 33-34. 63 ECtHR, Hoti v. Croatia (application no. 63311/14), 26 July 2018, paragraphs 126, 127; ECtHR, Sudita Keita v. Hungary (application no. 42321/15), 13 May 2020, paragraph 34. 64 ECtHR, Hoti v. Croatia (application no. 63311/14), 26 July 2018, paragraph 131; ECtHR, Sudita Keita v. Hungary (application no. 42321/15), 13 May 2020, paragraph 36. 61 14