2020 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2(2) the civil war. Thus, in 2006, he was admitted with a tolerated status (befogadott) and then granted a humanitarian residence permit for two years. 10 It did not seem that the authorities had informed him about the possibility of applying for stateless status, as required by national legislation. 11 In 2008, the Hungarian Immigration Authority reviewed his situation and left Mr Keita once again without a recognised status or valid documents and issued him with a deportation order. 12 In 2010, Mr Keita applied for stateless status. However, the national courts considered that his request should be refused on the grounds that the law required applicants to be ‛lawful[ly]’ staying in the country. 13 After lengthy proceedings, the Constitutional Court of Hungary declared in 2015 that the ‛lawful stay’ requirement was unconstitutional and contrary to Hungary’s international obligations in light of the 1954 Convention. The requirement was removed and Mr Keita was finally granted stateless status in October 2017, regaining his entitlement to basic healthcare and employment. 14 A Issues The applicant submitted that the Hungarian authorities’ refusal to regularise his situation had resulted in a violation of arts 3, 5, 8, 13 and 14 of the ECHR. 15 The applicant argued that the Hungarian legal framework was incompatible with international law and prevented him from being recognised as stateless and regularising his situation, resulting in a period of 15 years during which he was deprived of the means of providing for himself and was unable to marry. 16 The Government submitted that the applicant’s situation had been resolved following the Constitutional Court’s ruling and, even before such ruling, the difficulties faced by the applicant did not amount to a violation of art 8. In the Government’s view, art 8 cannot be interpreted as requiring a state to grant stateless status to a person. 17 The Court considered that the complaint was to be examined under art 8 alone. 18 Rejecting the Government’s arguments, the Court considered that the question was not whether Mr Keita should have been granted stateless status but rather whether he had had an effective opportunity to regularise his status. 19 The main question was similar to that in Hoti: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ibid [8]–[13]. ibid [11]. See further details under Part II(B)(2) below. Sudita Keita (n 1) [14]–[15]. ibid [16]–[17]. ibid [18]–[21]. See Gábor Gyulai, ‘Hungarian Constitutional Court Declares That Lawful Stay Requirement in Statelessness Determination Breaches International Law’ European Network on Statelessness (Blog Post, 2 March 2015) <https://www.statelessness.eu/blog/hungarian-constitutional-court-declares-lawful-stayrequirement-statelessness-determination>. These provisions protect the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art 3), the right to liberty and security (art 5), the right to respect for private and family life (art 8), the right to an effective remedy (art 13) and the prohibition of discrimination (art 14). Sudita Keita (n 1) [24], [26]–[27]. ibid [28]–[29]. ibid [24]. Regrettably, the judgment does not address the Court’s reasoning in deciding to examine the complaint under art 8 alone and departing from the applicant’s characterisation under ECHR (n 2) arts 3, 5, 13, 14. Sudita Keita (n 1) [36]. 326