Legal briefing: Statelessness and the right to respect for private and family life October 2024 found that the applicant failed to explain how exactly the refusal of access to a nationality impacted his personal and family life, thus the claim was not sufficiently substantiated in order to find a violation of Article 8 ECHR.225 Also in the Netherlands, the Council of State addressed the right to respect for private and family life in a case concerning the mother of a stateless child born in the Netherlands and who applied for confirmation of Dutch nationality.226 The authorities neither considered it established that the child was stateless nor that he fulfilled the residence requirements to acquire Dutch nationality. The applicant argued that the lack of a statelessness determination procedure in the Netherlands prevents the acquisition of Dutch nationality by stateless children born there, in violation of Article 8 ECHR, as well as Article 7 of the UNCRC and Article 24 ICCPR (both provisions protect the right to a nationality and to be registered immediately after birth). The Council of State referred to case law of the ECtHR, in particular the judgment in Genovese v Malta, but noted that Article 8 ECHR would only apply if the naturalisation request had been arbitrary, which the applicant did not be relevant where the rejection of a nationality request is made arbitrarily. It further noted that Article 7 UNCRC and Article 24(3) ICCPR do not impose an obligation on authorities to investigate whether the person is stateless and to subsequently determine statelessness status. The imposition of such burdensome requirements in order to evidence the impact of statelessness on an individual’s private and family life are not aligned with human rights law and regional and international jurisprudence on the topic. This was evidenced in a Human Rights Committee’s decision from 2021, where it condemned the Netherlands on the same case mentioned above. The Committee held that the Netherlands had violated the child’s rights under Article 24(3) ICCPR has the child was effectively unable to acquire a nationality, including due to the lack of a residence permit, a burden of proof placed on the applicant that meant he could not be registered as stateless, and the lack of a procedure to determine statelessness.227 Protection of LGBTIQ+ families and children born through surrogacy arrangements In various European jurisdictions, Article 8 ECHR has been invoked in cases concerning the nationality rights of children of LGBTIQ+ parents. These cases relate primarily to documentation issues of children born abroad to parents whose country of nationality does not recognise same-sex marriage or parenthood, or if it outlaws surrogacy. This causes a conflict with the child’s right to acquire nationality. Due to the construction of legal parenthood within specific jurisdictions, children born in such circumstances are at risk of statelessness. In most cases at the national and regional level, Article 8 was invoked in conjunction with arguments such as the best interests of the child. In Poland, the Supreme Administrative Court has handled various cases concerning the refusal to transcribe foreign birth certifications due to incompatibility with Polish 225 Luxembourg, Administrative Court, judgment no. 29401C, 14 February 2012. Netherlands, Council of State (Raad van State), ECLI:NL:RVS:2016:2912, 2 November 2016. 227 Human Rights Committee, Zhao v. Netherlands, CCPR/C/130/D/2918/2016, 19 December 2020. 226 38