Legal briefing: Statelessness and the right to respect for private and family life October 2024 domestic law. In a case regarding a child born abroad to two Polish mothers,228 the Court ruled in favour of the applicant’s right to receive the transcription of their birth certificate necessary to obtain identity documents, due to the overarching best interest of the child in receiving a recognised legal identity. In another case, in response to a general legal question regarding the transcription of foreign birth certificates for children of same-sex parents,229 the Court clarified that while Polish law prohibits such transcription, it should not hinder the child's access to necessary documents like passports, affirming the child's unquestionable Polish nationality. Similarly, in a case where the birth certificate listed a Polish father and an unknown surrogate mother,230 the Court overturned the refusal to confirm the child's Polish nationality based on surrogacy prohibition. It stressed that nationality confirmation should not be denied solely due to circumstances of birth, citing the prioritisation of the child's best interests established by the ECtHR in Labassee v France.231 In Austria, the Constitutional Court decided that the best interests of the child prevailed over the prohibition of surrogacy under domestic law in a case regarding children born in Ukraine through suspected surrogacy to Austrian nationals.232 The Court established that the application of the prohibition on surrogacy was unacceptable and violated Article 8 ECHR, reasoning that protection of family life also includes the child's right to a nationality based on descent from the parents. Despite these rulings at national level and the judgments of the CJEU mentioned above,233 challenges with implementation remain234 and the refusal in various jurisdictions to recognise the parent-child relationship within families identifying as LGBTIQ+ can cause further issues regarding the rights of the child to access fundamental services, and their enjoyment of the right to private and family life. Deportation and removal proceedings Article 8 ECHR has also been raised in domestic judgments in the context of deportation or removal orders, and several courts have required consideration of the impact of deportation on the private and family life of the individual. The Ukraine Supreme Administrative Court235 ruled on a case concerning the deportation to Moldova of a person who lived in Ukraine for 14 years with his partner and children. The applicant disputed this decision on the basis that he did not have a connection with Moldova and was in fact stateless, and that his family life in Ukraine was protected under Article 8 ECHR. While the Supreme Administrative Court did not address the Article 8 ECHR 228 Poland, Supreme Administrative Court, Case II OSK 2552/16, 10 October 2018. Poland, Supreme Administrative Court, Case II OPS 1/19, 2 December 2019. 230 Poland, Supreme Administrative Court, Case II OSK 3362/17, 10 September 2020. 231 ECtHR, Labassee v France (application no. 65941/11), 26 June 2014. 232 Austria, Constitutional Court, Case B99/12 ua, 11 October 2012. 233 See section 2.2. above. CJEU, Case C-490/20, V.M.A. v. Stolichna obshtina, rayon ‘Pancharevo’, 14 December 2021 and CJEU, Case C-2/21, Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich, 24 June 2022. 234 ENS Blog, ‘Celebrating progress in the protection of rainbow families, but more needs to be done’ (November 2022). 235 Ukraine, Supreme Administrative Court, No. K/9901/8478/20, 9 November 2020. 229 39