Sudita Keita v Hungary Whether, having regard to the circumstances as a whole, the Hungarian authorities, pursuant to Article 8, provided an effective and accessible procedure or a combination of procedures enabling the applicant to have the issues of his further stay and status in Hungary determined with due regard to his private-life interests. 20 B 1 Holding The Right to Private and Family Life and the Repercussions of an Uncertain Legal Status In its reasoning, the Court reiterated the principles outlined in Hoti. It stated that art 8 protects the right to establish and develop relationships as well as certain aspects of a person’s social identity, thus the social ties between a person and the community in which they live are included in the concept of private life. 21 The Court confirmed that the ECHR cannot be interpreted as guaranteeing a right to reside or a particular type of residence permit, nor can the Court decide which status should be granted. However, the national authorities must offer a solution for stateless people in order for them to enjoy their right to private and family life without obstacles. 22 In some cases, art 8 may therefore impose on states a positive obligation ‛to provide an effective and accessible means of protecting the right to respect for private and/or family life’, 23 including a domestic remedy allowing the competent authority to deal with the substance of a complaint under the ECHR and grant adequate relief. Taking into consideration that the applicant had been living in Hungary since 2002, where he undertook training and established a relationship, and that he did not have a recognised status in any other country, the Court accepted that Mr Keita had the right to enjoy private life in Hungary as protected by art 8. The uncertainty of his residence and migration status for about 15 years resulted in long periods without entitlement to healthcare and employment and caused adverse repercussions on his private life. 24 2 Statelessness as a Juridically Relevant Factor Of particular interest is that the Court considered the applicant’s statelessness to be an ‛important element’ of the case. 25 Although the Government did not contest that the Nigerian embassy had refused to recognise Mr Keita as a national, the Court observed that the authorities failed to inform the applicant about the possibility of applying for stateless status after they became aware of Nigeria’s refusal. According to national legislation, when there is a possibility that a person may be declared stateless, the immigration authority has a duty to inform them 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sudita Keita (n 1) [32]. See the similarities in Hoti (n 5) [124]. Sudita Keita (n 1) [31], citing Hoti (n 5) [119]. Sudita Keita (n 1) [31], citing Hoti (n 5) [121]. Sudita Keita (n 1) [31], citing Hoti (n 5) [122]–[123]. See also Abuhmaid v Ukraine (European Court of Human Rights, Fifth Section, Application No 31183/13, 12 January 2017) (‘Abuhmaid’) [118]–[119], which further explores the overlap between the protection afforded by ECHR art 8 and the guarantees under art 13. Sudita Keita (n 1) [34], [37]. ibid [35]. 327